N>«t'-^«r.'-^,-»,.^.^ 



gyta^g^gaGgiCi 



'SS£^ 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 



Chap. 

Sheif 






^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



/ 



LETTER 



FROM 

GEORGE COMBE 



TO 

FRANCIS JEFFREY, Esq. 

IN 

ANSWER 

TO HIS 

CRITICISM ON PHRENOLOGY. 

CONTAINED IN 

No LXXXVIII. OF THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. 

\ 



Moved " by the sound, the King grew vain : 
" Fought all his battles o'er again ; 

" And THRICE he routed all his foes, and thrice he slew the slain." 

Alexander's Feast. 



JOHN ANDERSON, Jun., EDINBURGH, 

55, NORTH BRIDGE STREET ; 

LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, & GREEN, AND 
SIMPKIN & MARSHALL, LONDON. 

1826. 



LETTER 



PROM 



GEORGE COMBE TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, Esq* 



Sir, 
An elaborate and ingenious criticism on my work on Phre- 
nology has just appeared in the 88th number of the Edin- 
burgh Review, which common report attributes to your pen. 
Finding myself assailed not only by the wit and argument of 
that article, but by the whole weight of your literary and 
philosophical reputation, I endeavoured to ascertain the 
grounds on which you were designated as its author ; and, 
in addition to the strong intrinsic evidence afforded by the 
article itself, I have traced the statement, in numerous in- 
stances, to individuals who say that they received the in- 
formation from yourself. Thus situated, I use the freedom 
to address this answer to you, not merely as the reputed 
editor of the Review, but as the individual author of the cri- 
ticism in question. 

In the 15th article of the 4th number of the Edinburgh 
Review for April, 1803, the late Dr Thomas Brown exclaim- 
ed, " Of Dr Gall and his skulls who has not heard !'' Af- 
ter eleven pages of hostile argument, he <' trusts, that his 

" readers are already sufficiently convinced that the prin^ 
" cipleslon which Dr Gall has founded his theory are erroneous ;'* 

A 



2 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

and adds, that '^ it is unfortunate for Dr Gall's theory that he has 
" entered into the detail of it with such minute exactness, as it en~ 
" ahles every one too easily to compare its predictions with the 
" skulls of those around him." 

In the 49th number of the same Review, the late Dr 

John Gordon exclaims, '' Our readers will here recognize, 

" without any difficulty, the same man of skulls whom we had oc- 
" casion to take notice of more than twelve years ago. Long be^ 
"fore this time we should have looked for his Craniologi' 
" cal death ! I" " We look upon the whole doctrines taught 
"^ by these two modern Peripatetics, (Drs Gall and Spurzheim,) 
'' anatomical, physiological, and physiognomical, as a piece of 
" thorough quackery from beginning to end ; and we are persuaded 
" that every intelligent person who takes the trouble to read a sin- 
'^ g\e chapter of the volumes before us will view them precisely in 
" the same light." — '' They are a collection of mere absurdities, 
" without truth, connexion, or consistency, which nothing could 
" have induced any man to have presented to the public, under pre- 
" tence of instructing them, but absolute insanity, gross ignorance, 
'^ or the most matchless assurance." 

These were pretty plain intimations to the public of the 
opinions of the Edinburgh Review ; and if " Craniology" did 
not immediately thereafter give up the ghost, you, at least, 
were guiltless of its future inroads and ravages. The pub- 
lic at first believed every word of this criticism, and railed at 
Craniology in round set terms, furnished by your Review ; — 
gave up purchasing and reading the works on the subject, and 
seemed, for a time, to have consigned it to oblivion.* AVith an 
obstinate, but not an ignorant perversity, however, (excited 
partly by the first edition of the work you have just con- 
demned,) the public " took to their old idols again;" after 
reflection, and observation of facts, many of them openly and 
audaciously professed belief in " Craniology," dignified, at 
length, by the name of Phrenology ; and plainly showed that 
the two articles of your Review in 1803 and 1815 had been 
utter failures. 



* Dr Spurzheim's publisher told me, that the sale of his works completely 
stopped after the appearance of the 49th number of the Edinburgh Review, 
and did not revive till 1819, after which it went on rapidly, and it still pro- 
ceeds. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. O 

The flourish with which you introduce the third attack is 
in the following terms : — " Every one, of course, has heard 

" of Dr Gall's Craniology, and seen his plaster heads^ mapped out 
'^ into the territories of some thirty or forty independent faculties. 
*' Long before this timej we confess, we expected to have seen them 
" turned into toys for children, and this folly consigned to that 
" great limbo of vanity to 7vhich the dreams of alchemy, sympathe" 
'^ tic medicine J and animal magnetism had passed before it" It 
seems really to provoke you that Phrenology will not die. 
You tell us in this article, that " the dogmatism and arro- 
" gance of its advocates were really beginning to be tire- 
" SOME, and the folly had lasted rather too long." No 
wonder ! It has lasted twenty- three years after you had de- 
prived il of every shadow of plausibility ! It is now believed 
in and supported by full-grown men, who were not in exist- 
ence when you first attacked it. This is lasting " rather too 
long." You assure us, however, that " it would, no 

" doubt) decline of itself in no very long time ; and, in supposing 
'' that we have now done something to accelerate its cessation, we 
" are probably vainly arrogating to ourselves an honour that will 
'' belong entirely to the progress of reason, or the more fortunate 
*' distraction of some newer delusion." It was this passage, cou- 
pled with the two previous attacks of the Review, that sug- 
gested the motto to the present Letter. 

The strong contempt which you entertain for Phrenology 
has kept you sadly ignorant of its history and progress. You 
have written sixty-six pages replete with hostile arguments, 
original, no doubt, to yourself, but the most of them familiar, 
as a thrice-told tale, to those who have attended to the dis- 
cussions about the science. Did the pubhc not know your 
genius and originality, it would be impossible for them to 
doubt, that you had ransacked the pages of Blackwood's 
Magazine, the Literary Gazette, and other equally philosophi- 
cal oracles, — picked up every argument they contain against 
Phrenology, and spun them into this web of your own. Your 
objections, almost without a single exception, have been al- 
ready propounded, refuted, and given up by their advocates, 
and, what is more, by the public. It shall be my business to 
prove this as we proceed. 



« LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

You say, " We do not hear that Phrenology makes much 
** way in London or Paris.'** This is because you do not 
read the periodical notices of its progress. Allow me then to 
mention, that there is in London a Phrenological Society, 
embracing upwards of a hundred members, not obscure per- 
sons, but members of parUament, doctors in medicine, bar- 
risters, and such hke. In April and May, 1826, Dr Spurz- 
heim lectured in that city to an audience exceeding 800 in- 
dividuals of the highest rank and intelligence ; and, finally, 
for brevity's sake, the Medico-Chirurgical Review for Octo- 
ber, 1826, the most widely-circulated and the most esteemed 
medical journal in Europe, has published a review of the sys- 
tem of Phrenology, in which the following passage occurs :^ 

*^ Phrenology is more intimately connected with the applica- 
'^ tions of medical knowledge than may at first sight be apparent. 
'' On this account, therefore, we recognize in the science of its frin' 
*' ciples a legitimate and useful subject of 'professional inquiry. We 
" must acknowledge, at the same time, that we feel impelled, hy 
** the pure force of multifarious and unquestionable evidence, to 
" regard this as the most intelligible and self -consistent system of 
'^ mental philosophy that has ever yet been presented to the con^ 
" temptation of inquisitive men." After a full, able, and accurate 
analysis of the work, the journalist concludes : — '^^ We might have 
*' expatiated at great length on the utility of this science, in its ap- 
" plications to the purposes of education, legislation, political eco- 
" nomy, criminal jurisprudence, history, legal and theological elo- 
" cution, and, above all, to the true philosophy of medi- 
*' CINE ; but we have abstained from this indulgence, in the belief 
*' that the foretaste of an intellectual luxury we have provided for 
" our readers will stimulate them to desire the enjoyments of a full 
'' repast."— P. 468. 

In regard to the progress of the science in Paris, I beg to 
refer you to the following extract of a letter from a gentle- 
man in that city, published in the Transactions of the Phre- 
nological Society in 1824. — " It is worth mentioning also, 

*' that, about two years ago, Dr Gall, at the request of the Mi- 
" nister of the Interior, commenced lecturing for the benefit of 
'^ the Medical Students in Paris. The lectures were, like others, 
" delivered gratis ; but he was provided with the use of the 
" operation and lecture room in the Hospice de Peifectionnement, 
*' for his first course, and afterwards, on account of that being 
'^ too small, with the large examination-room of the Institution 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. O 

" des Jeunes Aveugles, which is well fitted for the purpose. 
'' His audience amounted to betwixt 200 and 300 ; and so eager- 
" ly is he attended^ that it is well known that many more tickets 
" were applied for at each course than could be given, and that 
'' the apartment was regularly crowded half an hour before the 
" lecture began. Dr Spurzheim also continues to lecture in 
'' Paris, and although, from his demanding a fee, his auditory 
" is not numerous compared with Dr Gall's, yet he is regularly 
'' attended, and his course is esteemed the more philosophic of 
" the two." 

The statements of this letter are confirmed by a notice 
which appeared in the New Monthly Magazine for January, 
1823. — " Histoire des Fonctions du Cerveau. Par le Doe- 
teur Gall, 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1822. 

'^ This is another exposition of Dr Gall's system of Invincible 
*' (innate) Dispositions. This gentleman, who possesses no little 
" talent, both as a physician and a writer, has been practising, 
" for the last twelve or fifteen years, in Paris, where he has esta- 
^' blished a reputation, and realized a handsome fortune. On 
" the first development of his system, it was received either with 
*' unthinking pleasantry, or dismissed as idle, without due con- 
'' sideration ; but a more intimate knowledge of the man has led, 
" if not to the adoption of his ideas, at least to a more serious 
'^ and respectful examination of them. There are many men 
'' here (Paris) amongst the most eminent for their medical and 
'^ physiological knowledge, who, though differing widely upon 
" other scientific topics, yet agree in saying, that there is much, 
'^ not only of probability, but of truth, in the system of Dr Gall. 
" It is certain, that one of the most powerful motives of human 
" action, instinct, has been but very imperfectly examined by the 
" most celebrated modern philosophers, and, amongst others, the 
'' acute Helvetius. It appears to be the general opinion of the 
" present savans of Paris, that Dr Gall's system calls for a much 
" more serious and profound examination than it has hitherto 
^' undergone. To this task it will be necessary to bring a con- 
" siderable share of anatomical science, as the Doctor, it is said, 
" has made some very important discoveries in the structure of 
'' the brain. This new edition, which is improved and enlarged, 
«' will consist of eight volumes 8vo." 

The account given in the foregoing letter regarding the opi- 
nions entertained in Paris, although published in this coun- 
try several years ago, and reprinted at the time in a Parisian 
newspaper, have never been contradicted. Not only so, but 
they have been supported by many subsequent notices in the 



O LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

philosophical journals of France, particularly the Revue En- 

cyclopedique. 

In page ^95 of your Review, you state, " that several per- 

" sons who had been at first rather taken with the new doc- 

'* trines, had, by more careful observation, been thoroughly 

convinced of their fallacy." This also is an unfounded and 

very frequently-refuted assertion. It is adverted to in the 

following letter by Dr Spurzheim, likewise published in the 

Phrenological Transactions. 

'^ In the whole of our travels/' says he^ " we have been well re- 
'' ceived_, and the second course was always more fully attended than 
" the lirstj so that there was no doubt that the subject excited great 
** interest. But it is to be regretted that we stopt too short a time 
" to form practical pupils. The principles were explained, the de- 
" velopment shewn, and we were off. You will conceive that this 
'^ was not the way to establish the doctrine. We had more advan- 
'^ tage than our pupils, because we had great opportunities of ob- 
'' serving the heads of many men of talents ; we got more conviction 
" than our auditors. We were prepared by previous study to make 
" observations, but our stay was too short to teach the auditors to 
'' repeat them. Dr Gall even gave the advice not to repeat the ex*. 
" periments, since it is difficult to do so, which I have mentioned 
" ia my large English work, 2d edition, p. 270. But I assure you, 
'^ that not one Phrenologist, from knowledge, has fallen back, say- 
" ing that the doctrine is false. I have seen frequently the con- 
'^ trary, i. e. the belief in it strengthened by self-observations." 

Farther, the assertion, that individuals, after once be- 
lieving, have discovered evidence which induced them to 
renounce their faith, must imply one of two alternatives, — 
either that nature changed betwixt the period of belief and 
that of disbelief, or that the persons alluded to became con- 
verts at first from credulity, without due examination. The 
first alternative will scarcely be alleged to have happened ; 
and as the second implies a total want of a philosophic under- 
standing in the individual, and indeed admits his previous 
stultification, I willingly allow you all the advantages 
which you can derive from such testimony against the 
truth of the doctrines. Even although some persons should 
affirm that they have made observations, and found the re- 
sult to differ from the assertions of the Phrenologists, — this 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 7 

would be nothing more than has happened in the case of 
other sciences, which have nevertheless been ultimately ad- 
mitted to be true. Mr Playfair mentions that Mariotte, 
" though very conversant with experiment, appears never to 
*' have succeeded in repeating the experiments of NezvtonP 
Supp. to Encyc. Brit, second Dis. p. 57. 

To complete this brief notice of the progress of the science, 
allow me to add, that Dr Otto, an established medical profess- 
or, and editor of a medical journal in Copenhagen, lec- 
tures on Phrenology as the true theory of the functions of 
the brain, advocates its cause in his Journal, and has pub- 
lished a separate work in elucidation of it. In the United 
States there are Phrenological Societies in Philadelphia and 
Washington ; and lectures have been delivered at the latter 
city. New York, and Lexington. Dr Caldwell of Lexing- 
ton is an endowed medical professor, who has both published 
and lectured on the science ; and, in particular, his course in 
Washington this year was attended by the highest function- 
aries of the American state, and many members of Congress. 
In Calcutta there is a Phrenological Society ; and, as a proof 
that it is not a dormant body, it may be mentioned, that there 
is now on my table a pamphlet, or rather a book of 126 oc- 
tavo pages, published there in 1825, against the science. 
I could add many more proofs that Phrenology is far more 
widely extended than you appear to dream of; but one more 
shall suffice. In the spring of 1826, a Mechanics' Phreno- 
logical Society was formed in Dundee. The first letter of 
their Secretary announcing the information was as follows :— 

*' Dundee, May 2, 1826. — To George Combe, Esq.— Re- 
" SPECTED Sir, — The members of the Dundee Mechanics' Phre- 
'^ nological Society request me to transmit you their most sincere 
" thanks for the interest you have taken in their welfare^ by sendingf 
*^ them, through Mr Galloway, a copy of your System of Phreno- 
'' logy at a reduced price. At the same time they wish me to give 
" you some account of the motives which induced us to form our- 
" selves into a society for the purpose of obtaining a knowledge of 
" phrenological truth ; the chief of which was, the education of 
" youth. It has long appeared to a few of us, that the present sys- 



8 



LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 



'* terns of education (I use the word in its widest sense) are deficient, 
" because they do not seem to be founded upon a true knowledge of 
" the nature of man, by presupposing equal natural abilities in all, 
" and holding, that education alone is competent to make a youth 
" a mechanic, a lawyer, an orator, or a divine. But, experiencing 
" in our families the truth of the poet's observation, that 

" ' The hand of Nature on peculiar minds 
" ' Imprints a different bias,' " 

•*' we resolved to study Phrenology, and finding it (as far as our li- 
" mited observations went,) to be in accordance with nature, we 
" formed ourselves into a society, that we might the more easily ob- 
" tain the necessary books, busts, and apparatus, and, by our united 
'^ observations, aid each other in sooner acquiring a knowledge of 
" the science. We have now procured your ' Elements' and ' Sys- 
" ' tern,' a ' set' of busts and callipers, and two or three of our num- 
'^ ber are finishing craniometers for our use, which will enable us to 
^^ take more correct measurements. We have drawn up a few re- 
'^ gulations, but have not yet printed them, hoping we may procure 
'^ a copy of those belonging to your society, which might suggest 
" some new mode of procedure, as it is our wish to have every thing 
'^ as wisely ordered as possible to disarm our opponents, of which we 
'^ are honoured with a few, who industriously circulate Gordon's 
'' critique upon the science amongst themselves, — a work which, I 
'^ am told, is as full of opprobrious epithets as of sound philosophy. 
" We have chosen the name of Mechanics, &c. partly because it is a 
" true designation, and partly to distinguish our^ from the one 
'' formed by our " patricians," who will doubtless contribute to 
" throw new lights upon Phrenology by their discoveries; while we, 
'^ from our stations, must be content to receive its lights, happy if 
^' we succeed in rendering them practically useful for restraining 
'' the propensities, nourishing the higher sentiments, and training 
*' the faculties of oiir youth into activity, thereby rendering them 
'^ useful and virtuous citizens, fitted to adorn 

'^ ' The mild majesty of private life, 

^' ^ Where peace with ever-blooming olive crowns the gate.' 

'' Should your other avocations permit, we would feel proud of a 
" continuance of the countenance with which you have already ho- 
" noured us, which, I beg to assure you, would be gratefully re-^ 
" ceived by, respected Sir, your very obedient servant, 

" Alexander Taylor, Secy." 

The Secretary's second letter, dated 10th October, 1826, 

is as follows. — 

" Respected Sir, Dundee, lOtk October, 1826. 

*' In consequence of the increase of members to the Phrenological 

" Society of this quarter, we find it necessary, in order to meet the 

" demand of the younger members, to have other two copies of your 

f^ System, and one copy of the Elements. I have, therefore, at 



TO FEANGIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 9 

'^ their request, taken the liberty of applying to you, through the 
'' medium of the guard of the Champion coach, for them, who has 
" instructions to pay you for them ; and, should it be convenient^ 
" we would be obliged much by their being sent by return of the 
" the coach, as there is a meeting to-morrow evening. I remain, re- 
'^ pected Sir, your obedient servant, Alexander Taylor." 

Here, then, is evidence, that, notwithstanding of your ut- 
most efforts, and not of yours alone, but those of nearly the 
whole periodical press of Europe, Asia, and America, Phre- 
nology has extended itself into all these regions of the globe, 
and now embraces among its votaries men of every rank and 
profession, from the senator to the mechanic. One would 
imagine that such facts, if known to you, might have made 
you pause, and doubt of the infallibility of your own philoso- 
phy. The degree of knowledge which has forced its way 
into your mind has, indeed, modified the style of the present 
Review greatly to the better. Phrenologists were formerly 

*' quacks" ''^ empirics," " itinerant philosophers," " mountebanks," 
'' and " cunning craniologersj" now they are men of '* more than 
" common acuteness ;" but their doctrines are still '^ crude," ^' shal- 
" low," " puerile," '' fantastic," " dull," " dogmatic," " incredibly 
" absurd," '^ foolish," " extravagant," and " trash." How, then, 

does it happen that a gentleman of your acknowledged talent 
and courtesy should be betrayed into such a dismal situation 
as you now occupy ? for, after twenty-three years' experience 
of defeat, you are still denouncing a large number of intelli- 
gent men as lost in utter stupidity, because, after full exami- 
nation, they beheve in what you admit is, after all, a pure 
question of fact ! This is easily explained without disparage- 
ment either to your sentiments or intellect. Your opinions 
were formed in a different school, before Phrenology was 
heard of; and you have never been able to overcome the 
force of your first impressions so far as to study it with an 
impartial mind. 

Locke, in adverting to persons in a similar condition, says, 

f What probabilities are sufficient to prevail in such a case? And 
" who ever, by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed upon 
" to disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions and pretensions 
f' to knowledge and learning, which with hard study he hath all his 



10 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

" time been labouring for, and turn himself out stark naked in quest 
" of fresh notions ? All the arguments that can be used will be as 
" little able to prevail as the wind did with the traveller to part 
'^ with his cloak, which he held only the faster/' (Book iv. c. 20. 
§ 11.) 

That the phrenological doctrines do appear to your mind 
enveloped in all the incongruity and absurdity which you have 
so lavishly expressed, is explicable, without the alternative ne- 
cessarily following that these qualities really belong to them. 
When a new proposition is submitted to our consideration, 
we compare it with principles which we regard as established, 
and if we are able to connect it consistently with them, we 
admit it to be true, and give it our assent. If it appear at 
variance with our previous opinions, we are disposed to reject 
it as erroneous, and rarely possess the magnanimity to enter 
upon a scrutiny of our first impressions, so as to discover whe- 
ther they, or the new ideas, coincide most closely with nature, 
the only authoritative standard of physical truth. On the 
contrary, we too frequently regard received opinions with an 
undoubting and superstitious veneration, and reject new pro- 
positions as intrinsically absurd, not because we have ascer- 
tained them to be in opposition to facts, but because they do 
not coincide with what we previously believed to be true. 
Dr Thomas Brown has justl}'^ remarked, " that to those who 

*' have not sufficient elementary knowledge of science, to feel any 
" interest in physical truths, as one connected system, and no habi- 
" tual desire of exploring the various relations of new phenopfieua, 
" many of the facts in nature, which have an appearance of incon- 
'' gruity, as at first stated, do truly seem ludicrous." 

It now be my endeavour to show that this sentence of 
Dr Thomas Brown very accurately describes your mental 
condition on the subject of Phrenology. 

Your article contains five or six distinct annunciations, 
that you have " completely refuted" the science, and to the 
surprise of your readers, it tugs and toils on at a new and 
additional refutation. This, while it shows that you are ill 
at ease as to your own success, renders an answer within mo- 
derate limits extremely difficult ; and I hope, therefore, to 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 11 

be excused for bringing your objections on each point into a 
focus, and condensing the reply to the narrowest limits con- 
sistent with perspicuity. It shall be my earnest endeavour not 
to mistake or misrepresent your meaning, but to quote your 
own words. If you had done this by me, the present reply 
might have been spared ; for I observe, that you have generally 
preferred giving your own paraphrases of my statements, and 
have refuted these, leaving the real propositions quite unas- 
sailed. In truth, there is no review of the system of Phre- 
nology ; and no reader could form an accurate conception of 
that work from your representation of it. The article is a 
special pleading, all on one side, and its author resembles a 
party on his defence much more than a judge administering 
impartial justice. 

You decline bringing Phrenology to the test of observa- 
tion, because " A proposition, in point of fact, may be am- 

" biguous or unintelligible ; and before inquiring how it is 
'^ proved, we must ascertain whether it has any meaning, and 
" what that meaning truly is. When it is affirmed, that certain 
" projections on the skull, or the brain, are the organs of all the 
''faculties and dispositions of the mind, it will not do to pro- 
" ceed at once to the alleged proofs of this assertion ; we must 
" first determine what is meant by organs, and what by facuU 
'' ties, and in what sense these terras are here to be under- 
" stood."— P. 255. 

First, then, as to the organs. " Upon what grounds," you 
ask, '^ can the name of organs be applied to the bumps of the 
" Phrenologists ? or in what sense is it really intended that this 
" name should be received in their science ? The truth, we do 
" not scruple to say it, is, that there is not the smallest reason for 
" supposing that the mind ever operates through the agency of any 
" material organs, except in its perception of material objects, 
'' or in the spontaneous movements of the body which it inha- 
" bits ; and that this whole science rests upon a postulate or as- 
" sumption, for which there is neither any shadow of evidence, 
" nor any show of reasoning." — P. 267. The same proposition is 
repeated in p. S93, and in several other parts of the Review. 
The proofs adduced are the following: — "Insects con- 

" TINUE to perform ALL THEIR FUNCTIONS AFTER THEIR 

" HEADS ARE OFF ; and cold-blooded animals live and move 
" in the same predicament r In a subsequent page (312) 



12 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

you inform us, that " the writer of these observations is not 
*' learned in anatomy," — a modest declaration indeed ; but one 
which was scarcely necessary after this specimen of physiolo- 
gical wisdom. The Creator erred, then, in adding the super- 
fluous appendage of a head to insects : you would have ma- 
naged the matter better, by retrenching this unmeaning ex- 
crescence ! 

As to cold-blooded animals living and moving in the same 
predicament, I would ask, how long do they perform these 
acts ? But we have the authority of your own Journal against 
your grand proposition. " His Imperial Majesty," says the 

Reviewer of 1803, " has had of late too many good opportunities 
" of knowing that a mem cannot continue to march, and load, and 
'' fire, when he has left his head behind him ; and the redoubtable 
" lecturer of Vienna has said little more. It may be wrong/' 
continues he, "^ to allow a daring demonstrator of processes and 
'^ sinuosities to assert that the mind remembeYs, imagines, and 
" judges, only by the intervention of certain parts of the brain ; 
" but it is a piece of forbearance, at least as dangerous, to al- 
" low a single cellar to be open in the taverns of Vienna, ot 
" memory, imagination y and judgment, to he all set to sleep by a 
"Jew grains of a very common and simple drug" — Edinburgh 

Review, vol. II., p. 148. Memory, imagination, and judg- 
ment then, are neither acts of '' perception of material ob- 
'^jects, nor spontaneous movements of the body;" yet 
wine and opium first stimulate, and finally overpower them. 
How does this accord with your doctrine, " that the mind 
" never operates through the agency of material organs" in 
performing these functions ? 

This authority might be relied on as settUng the question 
with you ; but to convey to persons, who are not familiar with 
these topics, some idea of the recklessness of your assertion, a 
few passages from the most common medical and physiological 
authors may be cited. Dr Cullen says, " we cannot doubt that 

" the operations of our intellect always depend upon certain motions 
" taking place in the brain, S^c." — Practice of Physic, vol. II., 
^ 1538—9. 

Dr Gregory, speaking of the internal faculties of the mind, 
says, " Omnes ha^ facultates (videlicet memoria, imaginatio. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. IS 



'^ judicium) tarn pure mentis sunt, ut primo intuitu baud quic- 
" quam corporei iis inesse videatur : Decent tamen morbi qui 
'^ eas impediunt certum cerebri statum, ut bene exerceantur 
'' requiri : idque sensuum internorum primarium esse organum." 

Magendie, whose name stands so high both in France and 
Britain, says, " The brain is the material instrument of 
" thought. This is proved by a multitude (une foule) of ex- 
" periments and facts."* — Precis Elementaire de Physiologiey 
tome /., p. 115. edit. 1816. 

Your next objection is the following : — " If the theory of 

'' the Phrenologists be right, it would seem to follow, a fortiori, 
*' First, that all the five external senses must have organs in the 
** brain, as well as a connected apparatus or machinery beyond 
" it j — and, secondly, it is, at all events, a fundamental point in 
" their creed, that the mind is not in any way conscious or aware, 
** even as to them, that it acts by means of organs having any 
" locality at all. Now, the first and most plausible of these 
" propositions they have themselves been forced to abandon ; 
*' and both, we humbly conceive, are not only gratuitous, but, 
*' in any sound sense, entirely unfounded and erroneous.— P. 258. 

In answer to the assertion, that " all the five external senses 
*^ must have organs in the brain," I beg to state, that, from the 
views entertained by Phrenologists regarding the senses, (some 
of which are stated in a subsequent part of this Letter,) no other 
organs than those already known appear to be necessary ;— 
but, secondly, we are quite ready to admit such organs when- 
ever you prove their existence as matter of fact. You reply, 
however, that " it will not do to suggest here, or in other 

'' cases, where the allowance of faculties is plainly insufficient, 
'^ that these are mere omissions, which may still be supplied 
" if necessary, and do not affect the principle of the system. The 
" system, it must be remembered, rests not on principle, but on 
*' observation alone. Its advocates peril their cause on the as- 
" sertion, that it is proved by observation, and as matter of fact, 
" that their thirty-six bumps are the organs of thirty-six parti- 
'^ cular faculties, and no other, — that these organs have a cer- 
" tain definite shape and relative place and size, — and that 

* These authorities are all cited in my " Essays on Phrenology,'* published 
in 1819, in answer to a denial, in the 49th Number of the Edinburgh Review, 
that the brain is the organ of mind. They were not reprinted in the System, 
because the objection had been, till you took it up again, abandoned as utterly 
untenable. 



lii LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

'^ among them thei/ cover the whole skull, and occupy the whole 
" surface of the brain." — P. 287. This is your statement ; but 
the following is mine, printed in the work which you have 

reviewed : — '^ There are parts at the base of the brain, in the 
" middle and posterior regions, the size of which cannot be discover- 
" ed dwing life, and whose functions in consequence are still un- 
'' known. From analogy^ and from some pathological facts, 
'' they are supposed to be the organs of the sensations of hun- 
'" ger and thirst, heat and cold, and of some other mental affec- 
'^ tions,for which cerebral organs have not been discovered ; but 
*' demonstrative evidence to this ejSfect being wanting, this con- 
'^ jecture is merely stated to incite to farther investigation."— 

System of Phrenology, p. 31. If, then, you can show that there 
are mental affections attending the activity of the five senses, 
which cannot be referred to the external organs, nor to any 
of the internal organs admitted by Phrenologists, it will un- 
doubtedly follow, on the principles of this science, that such 
affections must have organs klso ; but the objection, that 
" there is no room for them to extend their position,*"* is ut- 
terly unfounded. 

As to the mind's consciousness of organs, I shall notice, 
first, the real phrenological doctrine on that point ; and, se- 
condly, your commentary upon it. In the System of Phre- 
nology it is stated, that '' the mind is not conscious of acting 

" by means of organs ; and hence the material instruments, by 
*^ means of which it performs its operations in this life, and 
'^ communicates with the external world, cannot be discovered 
^^ by reflection on consciousness." — P. 25. In the Essays on 

Phrenology this doctrine is illustrated at some length ; but 
the illustrations were omitted in <' the System'* as superfluous, 
the point having been conceded by every person who had con- 
sidered the subject. Allow me, however, to repeat them, as 
you still dispute the accuracy of this fundamental principle of 
the science. " The organs, by means of which the mind acts 

'' upon, and by means of which it receives impressions from the 
" external world, perform their functions without any con- 
" sciousness in the mind either of their existence or their ope- 
" rations. For example, voice is produced by the contraction 
'' and relaxation of a number of muscles connected with the 
" larynx, at the command of the will ; and yet consciousness 
'' gives us no intimation either of the existence or functions of 



15 

'^ these muscles. In like manner, the leg and arm are extended 
" and withdrawn by means of the nerves of voluntary motion, 
" and a great number of muscles at the command of the will ; 
'' and yet of the existence and operation of these nerves and 
*' muscles consciousness gives us no intimation. We are con- 
" scious of the act of volition which puts them in motion, and 
" of the result produced, but not of the existence and operation 
'' of the special nerves and muscles themselves." — Essay on Phre^ 
nology, p. 3. 

Phrenologists then say, that the mind is not conscious 
of smelling by means of the olfactory nerves, hearing by the 
auditory, or seeing by the optic nerves. 

On this doctrine you remark, " but they are ail agreed, 
" it seems, that the mind has no knowledge of the existence 
*' of the organs of sense, or of the functions performed by 
*' them." — P. 267. Here you have used the freedom to sub- 
stitute " Knowledge," which I did not write, for " Conscious- 
ness," the word actually employed ; and your reason for doing 
so will speedily appear. You proceed, — " This, to most 

'^ people, will probably appear more surprising still. Is it 
'^ meant to be said, that we do not know, certainly, naturally, 
^^ and immediately, that we see with our eyes, and hear with 
" our ears, and feel with that part of our bodies on which an 
" external impression is made ?" This objection is absolutely 

created by your substituting the assertion, that " the mind has 
" no knowledge of the organs of sense," for the real proposi- 
tion, that it has " no consciousness" of them. The Phrenolo- 
gists have not said, that we do not know that we see by the 
optic nerves, but only affirm, that this fact is ascertained by 
observation, and not by instinctive consciousness; and the 
inference which they draw is, that if we cannot discover the 
existence even of such palpable organs as the auditory and ol- 
factory nerves by means of simple consciousness or feeling, 
but must resort to observation to find them out, it is not 
wonderful that we should not be conscious of the internal or- 
gans of the mind, or that observation should be requisite to 
determine them also. * 

You anticipate this correction, and the answer that will be 
founded on it, and try to show that the words " immediately 



16 LETTEE FROM GEORCE COMBE 

^' knowand feel/' are synonimoQs with "being conscious." You 

then proceed : — " The true question upon either supposition 

" is, whether, knowing and feeling, as, in one way or other, we 
*^ do with the most perfect distinctness, that we see with our 
*' eyes, and hear with our ears, and that it is by these organs 
*' alone that the mind performs these functions, it can be truly 
^' or even imtelligibly said, that roe are as little aware of acting by 
^' material organs when we so see or hear, as we are that we love 
'^ our children, by bumps on the back of the head, or perceive the 
'' beauty of music by a small protuberance in the middle of the 
^' eyebrow." — P. 260. The only, shadow of plausibility in this 

argument depends on your confounding facts and proposi- 
tions that are altogether distinct. The ears, in popular 
language, include the whole auditory apparatus, namely, the 
external ear, the tympanum, labyrinth, semicircular canals, 
numerous small bones, and the auditory nerve which con- 
nects these with the brain ; and the " eyes," in common 
speech^ include the eyeballs and the optic nerves. Now, 
" are we aware" of any thing more than the mere locality of 
the senses of hearing and seeing ? Do you assert that we " are 
aware" of all the organic apparatus now enumerated, and 
that you are conscious that the existence of an external ob- 
ject becomes known to you, through the eye, only by means 
of an image depicted on your own retina ? You certainly can- 
not maintain this. But we have the same general impression of 
the locality of the mind ; we know that we do not love chil- 
dren by tne foot, nor write reviews by the calf of the leg, 
but that thinking in general is performed by the head. If 
we go one step farther, however, and inquire whether we 
know that there is a brain, or an apparatus of organs in the 
interior of the skull, by means of which the processes of think- 
ing are accomphshed ? the answer must be, that we do not 
know until we have ascertained the fact by observation. In 
like manner, I venture to assert, that mankind have found out 
the optic nerve to be the organ of vision, solely by observing, 
that vision never existed without it ; or, in your own words, 
" by anatomy and experiment." If this be sound physiology, 
does it warrant you to object to the doctrine which teaches, that, 

7 



' TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 17 

in order to discover a particular portion of the brain to be the 

organ of Benevolence, we must observe the relation between 

the power of experiencing this emotion and the condition of 

that organic part ? and yet this is the proposition which you 

adduce it to refute. 

After stating your objections to the organs, you proceed, — 

" These last considerations lead us naturally to another class of 
'' objections which^ we confess, have always appeared to us of 
'' themselves conclusive against this new philosophy, — those we 
'' mean which apply to the strange apparatus of separate facid- 
'^ ties and sentiments into which it has parcelled out and divided 
*' the mind. 

" We are a little jealous of the word faculties in any philoso- 
^' phical discussion. The mind, we take it, is one and indivisible ; 
*' and if by faculties is meant parts^, portions, or members, by 
" the aggregation of which the mind is made up^, we must not 
'' only deny their existence, but confess that we have no great 
^' favour for a term which tends naturally to familiarize us with 
*' such an assumption. What are called faculties of the mind^ 
" we would consider as different acts, or rather states of it ; but 
'' if this be the just view of the matter, it is plain that it renders 
'^ it in the highest degree improbable, if not truly inconceivable, 
'^ that those supposed faculties should have each a separate mate- 
'' rial organ."— V. 261. 

This objection has been long ago answered in the Phre- 
nological Journal, vol. I. p. ^06, and by the Rev. David 
Welsh, in a note to his Life of Dr Thomas Brown, quoted 
on page 54 of the " System"" which you were reviewing. Dr 
Brown maintains, that the vfovA faculties means only states of 
the mind ; and Mr Welsh observes, that ''the only differ- 

'' ence that the doctrines of Phrenology introduce in regard to 
" Dr Brown's principle is, that, instead of the feelings and 
" thoughts being merely the relations of the simple substance 
" mind, to its own former states, or to external objects, they are 
" the relations of the simple substance mind to certain portions 
*^ of the encephalon. 

" In looking upon any object — as snow — we have the notion 
'^ of a certain colour. Now, the notion is not in the snow, but 
" in the mind ; that is, the notion of colour is the mind existing 
'^ in a certain relation to an external object. But it is allov/ed, 
'^ on all hands, that there is an intervening step between the 
" snow and the mind. There is an affection of the optic nerve. 
" It will be conceded, that this does not alter the question as to 
'' the simplicity of the mind ; and if this is conceded, it is abun- 

B 



18 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE I 

'' dantly obvious, that another step in the process might be 
'^ conceived^ without taking away from the simplicity of the im- 
'^ material part, and that, instead of an affection of the optic 
" nerve being the immediate antecedent of the notion of colour, 
" it might be a particular portion of the encephalon. As the 
'' notion of colour, upon this supposition, is a relation of the 
^' mind to the organ of Colour, it follows, that, if an organ were 
" changed in any respect, the state of the mind would also be 
'^ changed. Thus, if it were larger, or of a finer structure, or 
'^ more active, the perception of colour would be more delicate, 
" or quick^ or pleasing. The same remarks might be extended 
" to all the organs. Where the organ of Causality is large, as 
'^ in the case of Dr Brown himself, then there will be a ten- 
" dency to reason ; which tendency is a state of the mind in re- 
" lation to a material organ, which state would have been dif- 
" ferent had the organ been different. 

" A multitude of organs may all be affecting the mind at the 
^'^ same instant, and in that case a variety of feelings will be ex- 
'' perienced ; but still the mind is simple, and it is only its re- 
" lations to these different organs that are complex." 

This metaphysical reply to your objection appears to me 
tolerably complete ; but there are more tangible and practical 
answers to your denial of separate faculties and organs. Dr 
Barclay, in his work on Life and Organization, stated argu- 
ments on this point extremely similar to those now adduced 
by you, and Dr Andrew Combe answered him in the Phreno- 
logical Transactions. From his paper I select the following 
passages. They will show also to what extent your objections 
have been anticipated and refuted, apparently without your 
knowing any thing of the matter. 

«' First, Then,"" says Dr Combe, *' it is an undisputed 
truth, that the various mental powers of man appear in suc- 
cession, and as a general rule, that the reflecting or reason- 
ing faculties are those which arrive latest at perfection. In 
the child, the powers of observing the existence and quali- 
ties of external objects arrive much sooner at their maturity 
than the reasoning faculties. Daily observation shows that 
the brain undergoes a corresponding change ; whereas we 
have no evidence that the immaterial principle varies in its 
powers from year to year. If the brain, as a whole, is the 
organ of the mind, this successive development of faculties 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY^ ESQ. 39 

is utterly at variance with what we should expect a priori ; 
because, if the general organ is fitted for manifesting with 
success one mental faculty, it, one should think, ought to 
be equally so for the operation of all, which we see is not 
the case. Observation indeed shows, that different parts of 
the brain are really developed at different periods of life. 
In infancy, according to Chaussier, the cerebellum forms 
one-fifteenth of the encephalic mass ; and in adult age, from 
one-sixth to one-eighth, its size being thus in strict accord- 
ance with the energy of the propensity of which it is the or- 
gan. In childhood, the middle and lower part of the 
forehead generally predominates ; in later life, the upper 
lateral parts become more prominent, w^hich facts also are 
in strict accordance with the periods of unfolding of the 
knowing and reasoning powers. 

" 2d, Genius is almost always partial, which it ought not 
to be, if the organ of the mind were single. A genius for 
poetry, for mechanics, for music, or for mathematics, some- 
times appears at a very early age in individuals, who, in re- 
gard to all other pursuits, are mere ordinary men, and who, 
with every effort, can never attain to any thing above me- 
diocrity. 

" Sdly, The phenomena of dreaming are at variance with 
the supposition of the mind manifesting all its faculties by 
means of a single organ, while they are quite consistent 
with, and exphcable by, that of a plurality of organs. In 
dreaming, the mind experiences numerous vivid emotions, 
such as those of fear, joy, affection, arising, succeeding one 
another, and departing without control from the intellectual 
powers ; — or, it is filled with a thousand varied conceptions, 
sometimes connected and rational, but more frequently dis- 
jointed and absurd, and all differing widely from the wak- 
ing operations of the mind, in wanting harmony, consist- 
ency, and sense. These phenomena harmonize remarkably 
with the notion of a variety of faculties and organs, some of 
which, being active, would communicate these ideas and 



so LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

feelings which constitute a dream, while others remaining 
asleep would, by their inactivity, permit that disordered ac- 
tion which characterizes the pictures formed by the fancy 
during sleep. 

*' Were the organ of mind single, it is clear that all the 
faculties should be asleep or awake to the same extent at 
the same time ; or, in other words, that no such thing as 
dreaming could take place. Somnambulism, although in 
itself a species of dreaming, affords a still stronger illustra- 
tion. In that state, one or more of the external as well as 
internal senses are awake, while the others are dormant. In 
this instance we see that the organs asleep and awake are 
different, as when a person walks with his eyes shut ; but 
let us suppose that they were as much hidden as the brain, 
would any man infer from the phenomena, that sight, smell, 
taste, and voluntary motion, could be exercised by one and 
the same organ, when he finds all of them in different states 
and degrees of intensity in one individual at the same time ? 
Never. Then, on what principle does any one draw a dif- 
ferent inference from similar phenomena, when the internal 
faculties and organs are in question .? 

" At present, however, it is chiefly to the admitted phe- 
nomena of what are called Partial Idiocy and Partial In- 
sanity that I am anxious to direct your attention ; because 
these states of the mind are so plainly and strongly in con- 
tradiction with the notion of a single organ of mind, that 
Pinel himself, no friend to Phrenology, asks if their pheno- 
mena can be reconciled to such a conception. 

*' Partial Idiocy is that state in which an individual ma- 
nifests one or several powers of the mind with an ordinary 
degree of energy, while he is deprived to a greater or less 
extent of the power of manifesting all the others. Pine], 
Haslam, Rush, Esquirol, and, in short, every writer on in- 
sanity, speaks of the partial development of certain mental 
powers in idiots ; and Rush in particular not only alludes 
to the powers of intellect, but also to the partial possession 



Esa. SI 

of the moral faculties. Some idiots, he observes, are as re- 
markable for correct moral feelings as some great geniuses 
are for the reverse. In his Traite clu Goitre et de la Cre- 
tinisme, Fodere thus speaks, p. 133 : — ' It is remarked, that, 

' by an inexplicable singularity, some of these individuals 
' (cretins)^ endowed with so weak minds, are horn with a 
"^ particular talent for copying paintings, for rhyming, or for 
' music. I have known several who taught themselves to 
' play passably on the organ and harpsichord ; others who 
' understood, without ever having had a master, the repairing 
' of watches, and the construction of some pieces of mechan- 
'"' ism.' He adds, that these powers could not be attributed 
to the intellect, '^ for these individuals not only could not read 
' books which treated of the principles of mechanics, but ils 
' etaient deroiites lorsqiion en parlait et ne se perfectionnaient 
' jamais.' It must be observed also, that these unfortunate 

individuals differ very much in the Mnd as well as quantity 
of mental power possessed. For example, an instance is 
given by Pinel of an idiot girl who manifested a most won- 
derful propensity to imitate whatever she heard or saw, but 
who displayed no other intellectual faculty in a perceptible 
degree, and never attached an idea to the sound she uttered. 
Dr Rush particularizes one man who was remarkable for his 
religious feelings, although exceedingly deficient in intellec- 
tual power, and other moral sentiments ; and among the 
cretins, many are to be found who scarcely manifest any 
other faculty of the mind except that of Amativeness. The 
above quotation from Fodere also illustrates this fact. One 
is all kindness and good nature, another quarrelsome and 
mischievous. One has a lively perception of harmony in 
music, while another has none. 

" It ought also to be observed, that the characteristic fea- 
tures of each particular case are strictly permanent. The 
idiot, who to-day manifests the faculty of Tune, the feeling 
of Benevolence, of Veneration, or of Self-esteem, will not 
to-morrow, nor in a year, change the nature of his predomi- 
nant manifestations. Were the deficiency of the single or- 
gan the cause of idiocy, these phenomena ought not to ap- 
pear ; for the general organ being able to manifest one fa- 



22 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

culty, ought, according to the circumstances in which the 
individual is placed, to be equally able to manifest all others, 
whose activity may be required, and thus the character of 
the idiocy ought to change with every passing event, which 
it never does. Fodere calls these ' inexplicable singulari- 
ties,' and, no doubt, on his and Dr Barclay's theory they 
truly are so. To the Phrenologist, however, they offer no 
difficulty, for they are in perfect harmony with Ms views. 
The difference in the hind of powers manifested in cases of 
partial idiocy, between the capacity for mechanics, for in- 
stance, and the sentiment of Veneration, Self-esteem, or Be- 
nevolence, is as great as between the sensations excited by 
the perception of a sound, a taste, or a smell. To infer, 
therefore, that one organ serves for the manifestation of all 
these facvilties, is really much the same in point of logic as 
if we were to suppose all the external senses to communi- 
cate with the mind through the medium of only one nerve, 
in spite of the facts of many individuals being bhnd who 
are not deaf, or deaf and still able to see and smell. 

" Although partial idiots manifest one or more faculties 
more powerfully than others, yet they seldom or never ma- 
nifest any with the energy of a sound mind. Consequently, 
according to the phrenological system, we ought in such 
cases generally to find the brain defective in size. Now, 
Pinel, and many other opponents^ inform us, that this is 
precisely the case ; and in the course of my own observa- 
tions, both on the Continent and in this country, I have 
found the same fact to hold good in a considerable number 
of cases. It does not always occur, because, although small 
size is a frequent cause of idiocy, it is by no means the only 
one. I may farther mention, that Phrenologists, by actual 
observation^ have found in idiots those parts of the brain 
most fully developed which corresponded to the organs of 
the faculties most strongly manifested by them ; and obser- 
vation also has, in some instances, shown the entire absence 
of those convolutions which form a part of the organs of 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 23 

certain faculties in which they were deficient. Indeed, by 
comparing the brains and mental manifestations of some 
idiots with those of healthy individuals, the conviction of a 
plurality of organs is almost forced upon the mind by the 
evident and distinctive characteristics of each. In the col- 
lection of the Society, there is a cast of the brain of an idiot 
girl, in which no trace of certain convolutions, which in the 
ordinary state indicate the development of the organs of 
Causality, can be perceived, while others are distinctly re- 
cognisable. I have also seen in the possession of Dr Spurz- 
heim a cast of a brain in which the organs of Veneration 
were wanting, and a deep hollow existed in the correspond- 
ing situation. 

" We come now to the consideration of Partial Insanity, 
or that state in which one or more faculties of the mind are 
diseased, without affecting the integrity of the remainder. 
This state, which is also known by the name of Monomania, 
appears equally with the former to exclude the possibility 
of one organ executing the functions of all the mental facul- 
ties ; for the argument constantly recurs, that if the organ 
be sufficiently sound to manifest one faculty in its perfect 
state, it ought to be equally capable of manifesting all,— 
which, however, is known to be in direct opposition to fact. 
Having, in a former paper " On Insanity," as illustrated by 
Phrenology, laid before the Society a great variety of cases 
connected with the point under discussion, I shall on the 
present occasion confine myself to the statement of a very 
few instances, merely in illustration of the proposition. 

'' Of folie raisonnante Pinel thus speaks : — ' Hospitals 

' for the insane are never without some example of mania 

' marked by acts of extravagance, or even of fury, with a kind 

' of judgment preserved in all its integrity, if we judge of it 

' by the conversation ; the lunatic gives the most just and 

' precise answers to the questions of the curious; no incohe- 

' rence of ideas is discernible ; he reads and writes letters as 

' if his understanding were perfectly sound ; and yet, by a 

' singular contrast, he tears in pieces his clothes and bed- 

' covers, and always finds some plausible reason to justify his 



24- LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

' wandering and his fury. This sort of mania is so far from 
' rare, that the vulgar name oifolie raisonnante has been given 
'^ to it/ — P. 93. A very striking instance of furious mania, 

with integrity of intellect, will be found, quoted from Pinel, 
in the Preliminary Dissertation, and which it is unnecessary 
for me to repeat. I shall, however, add another equally in- 
teresting case from the same author. ' On ne pent conce- 

' voir la nature d'une certaine alienation, qui est comme un 
' melange de raison et d'extravagance, de discernement, et 
' d'lin vrai delire, ohjets qui semhlent sexclure recijjroq2i€'ment.' 
' One lunatic,' he continues, ' whose malady is of seven 
' years' standing, is perfectly aware of his state, and forms as 
^ sound a judgment of it as if it were a thing which did not 
' immediately concern himself. He tries to make efforts to 
' free himself from it ; but, on the other hand, he is convinced 

* that it is incurable. If any one remarks the incoherence in 
' his ideas in his talking, he readily acknowledges it, but an- 
' swers, that this inclination overpowers him so much, that he 
' cannot but submit. He adds, that he does not guarantee 
' the soundness of the judgments which he forms, but that it 
' is not in his power to rectify them. His understanding is 
^ much more altered in another respect, that he believes him- 
' self above all ordinary rules ; and he thinks, that if he once 
' resolved to approximate to other men in his conduct, he 
' must begin by doing most extraordinary things, from which 
' the greatest evils and even atrocities would result to himself. 
' He believes, for example, that if he wiped his nose, that or- 
' gan would remain in his handkerchief; that if he shaved 
' himself, he must of necessity cut his throat, and that, at the 
' first attempt to walk, his legs would break like glass. He 
' sometimes subjects himself to rigorous abstinence for seve- 
' ral days, under the impression, that if he took aliments, they 

* would suffocate him. What are we to think of an aberra- 
' tion of intellect so regular and so singular }' — Page 94. 

" It would be easy for me to multiply such instances as 

these of the partial affection of the mental faculties, but it is 

needless to occupy your time with more, and the above are 

amply sufficient to show the nature and bearing of such 

cases. Here again the difficulty recurs of reconcihng such 

facts with the idea of one organ executing all the functions 

of the mind'. How comes that organ to be able to manifest 

one, but 7iot all the faculties ? or. How does it happen 

that these affections retain the same characteristic featui'es 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESa. 25 

throughout ? That the patient, who labours under religious 
melancholy is found the same to-day as yesterday, and will 
be found the same to-morrow, for a month, or for a year ? 
or how does it happen that a person may be insane, and yet 
aware of being so ? If the single organ were affected, surely 
all the faculties of mind, of which it is said to be the instru- 
ment, ought in every case to be equally deranged, and the 
patient ought to pass in one moment from an abyss of de- 
spondency to the abodes of bliss, from the state of listless 
apathy to that of demoniacal furor. We may be told that 
this is sometimes found actually to be the case, and no 
doubt it is so ; but it is far more rare than the other state, and 
is easily explained on the phrenological principles ; for, in 
such cases, the whole brain, including of course all the or- 
gans, is diseased. This state, therefore, aifords a true pic- 
ture of the nature of insanity, such as it would necessarily 
be in every instance, if the organ of mind were single. It 
must strike every one who has been at all in the habit of 
seeing cases of insanity, or of reading histories of them in 
books, that there is scarcely a single case to be met with 
which is, I do not say explained by, but even consistent 
with, the division and functions of the faculties assigned by 
the metaphysicians. Pinel, Crichton, and many other very 
eminent and very philosophical men, have laboured to re- 
concile some species of insanity to the metaphysical systems, 
which they had severally adopted ; but, with all their ge- 
nius, and with all their unwearied industry, they have 
hitherto laboured in vain. Whereas, not a single instance 
will be found which is in contradiction with the principle of 
a plurality of organs, nor even, as far as I am aware, with 
the existence of such organs as we consider already ascer- 
tained. 

" Besides the phenomena of idiocy and insanity, there is 
also another class of facts (to which however I shall only al- 
lude) equally at variance with the supposition of a single 
organ of mind, viz. partial injuries of the brain, which are 



LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 



/ 



said to have occurred without injury to the mental faculties. 
Having in a former communication to the Society examined 
these cases in detail, I need not repeat them, but merely 
observe, that if every part of the brain is concerned in every 
mental act, it appears strange that all the processes of 
thought should be manifested with equal success^ when a 
great part of the brain is injured or destroyed, as when its 
whole structure is sound and entire. If the fact were really 
as here stated, the brain would form an exception to the ge- 
neral laws of organic structure ; for although a part of the 
lungs may be sufficient to maintain respiration, or a part of 
the stomach to execute digestion, in such a way as to sup- 
port lifC;, there is no instance in which these functions have 
been as successfully performed by impaired organs as they 
would have been by lungs and stomach in their natural 
state of health and activity. The Phrenologists are reduced 
to no such strait to reconcile the occurrence of such cases 
with their system ; for as soon as the principle of a plurality 
of organs is acknowledged, they admit of an easy and satis- 
factory explanation. 

'' From the preceding considerations, then^ it appears, 
that any theory, founded upon the notion of a single organ, 
is uniformly at variance with all that is ascertained to be 
fact in the philosophy of mind ; and that, on the other 
hand, the phrenological principle of a plurality of organs, 
while it satisfactorily explains most of these facts, is con- 
sistent with all of them. Its truth is thus almost demon- 
strated, not by far-fetched or pretended facts, which few 
can verify, but by facts which, to use Dr Barclay's own 
expression, daily ' obtrude themselves upon the notice 
of the senses.' This principle, indeed, bears on the 
face of it so much greater a degree of probability than 
the opposite one, as to have long since forced itself on the 
minds of many inquirers. Fodere himself, a very zeal- 
ous opponent of Phrenology, after recapitulating a great 
many reasons similar to those already mentioned, which had 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. Wif 

been employed by philosophers antecedent to Gall and 

Spurzheim, for believing in a plurality of mental organs, is 

constrained to admit, that " this kind of reasoning has been 

' employed ^ par laplupart des anatomistes/ from the time of Ga- 
^ len down to those of our own day, and even by the great Hal- 
" ler qui eprouvait le besoin d'assigner una fonction a chaque 
' departement du cerveau/ " &c. Pinel also, (in the article 
" Manie/' in the Encyclopedic Methodique,) after relating some 
cases of partial insanity, asks, '' si tout cet ensemble de faits pent 
' se concilier avec I'opinion d'lm siege ou d'un principe unique de 
' I'enten dement" If, then, the majority of anatomists, for the 

last ^000 years, and such illustrious physiologists as Haller, 
and the others above referred to, were led to the belief of a 
plurality of mental organs, by a perception of the contradic- 
tion and inconsistency existing between the phenomena, and 
the supposition of the whole brain being the single organ of 
mind, I cannot be far wrong in saying, that the latter no- 
tion, although it may be adopted by Dr Barclay, so far from 
being self-evident, appears so improbable as to require even 
stronger facts to prove it than the phrenological view." — 
Phren, Trans.^ pp. 413 — 426. 

But let us return to the reasons urged by you, for denying 

a plurality of faculties and organs : — " By the example of the 

'^ external senses and their known organs," you say, '' it is no 
" doubt proved, that certain faculties or states of the mind 
" have material organs ; and why, it may be asked, should it 
" not be inferred that other faculties have them also?" — This is 
a very fair question ; and you answer, 1^^, That we believe the 
" functions of seeing and hearing, &c. to be carried on by mate- 
" rial organs, only because we know and feel that they are so." 

Now, you li:now that you see by the optic nerve only, be- 
cause you have been told so, or have observed the effects of 
injuries of it on other men; but I deny that yon Jkel its 
functions at all. In fact, Magendie,* to whom you refer as 
an authority, has recently stated reasons for doubting whe- 
ther the optic nerve is at all connected with vision, — a point 
which could not, by any possibility, be open to question, if 
we had an intuitive consciousness of its functions. You pro- 

* Compend. of Physiol., Milligan's Translat, 2cl edit., p. 48. 



S8 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

ceed, — " And we do not believe that the mind performs its 

'' other functions by a like machinery, hecause we do not know 
" or feel any thing analogous in their operations." — If I am cor- 
rect in the preceding reply, it follows, that if you choose to 
pursue the same means to discover whether " the mind per- 
" forms its other functions by a like machinery," you may 
come to know that men love their children by a " bump on 
" the back of the head," just as they hear by the auditory 
nerve. It is not the fact that men Jeel either the one or the 
other. If you do not incline to believe on testimony, or to 
practise a course of observation to find out the existence and 
functions of the " internal machinery," you must, of pure ne- 
cessity, remain altogether uninformed on the subject ; but 
you would have remained equally uninstructed in regard to 
the organs of the external senses, if you had as resolutely re- 
jected these means of information. Indeed, it is amusing to 
observe your inconsistencies. In p. 258, in speaking of the 
eyes, ears, and touch, you say, that " anatomy and experi- 
" ment show farther, that the sensibility of these organs de- 
" pends on the nerves which belong to them." — A little be- 
fore you referred this knowledge to consciousness. 

" If," (you continue,) '' the mind, in comparing or resenting, 
" made use of certain organs in the head, just as it does in hearing 
" and seeing, we cannot but think that the fact would be equal- 
'' ly certain and notorious ; but, as we know or feel nothing at 
'' all analogous, we cannot believe that any thing of the kind 
" takes place." — Imagine for a moment, that a reviewer of the 

days of Galileo had objected to the doctrine of the revolution 
of the globe, " that if the earth did turn on its axis, we can- 
" not but think that this would have been certain and noto- 
<' rious ; but, as we know or feel nothing at all analogous, 
" we cannot believe that any thing of the kind takes place,"*' 
how would you have despised his weakness ? The fact which 
you dispute lies out of the region of consciousness as much 
as the revolution of the globe ; and if you will not conde- 
scend to discover it by the exercise of your understanding, 
you must continue unconvinced of its truth. The analogy 
of the senses is against you- 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ.. 29 

Your second answer is, that " all the organs which we ac- 
" tually know to be used by the mind are used to connect it 
'' with material and external objects ; and indeed it is difficult 
" for us to conceive how we could ever have become acquainted 
" with such objects, except by means of a material apparatus in 
^' our living bodies. But the other functions of mind do not so con- 
" neat us with matter ; and therefore there is not only no such 
" reason for supposing their existence, but there is a correspond- 
'^ ing difficulty in the conception." — P. 262. I must here again 

refer you to the well-known effects of wine, opium, and ni- 
trous oxide gas, on the mental manifestations. You who as- 
sert^ " that there is not the least reason to suppose that any 

" of our faculties J but those which connect us with external ob- 
" jects, or direct the movements of our bodies, act by material 
" organs at all" (p. 293.) are certainly called upon to explain 

how an immaterial principle can be excited to activity, hur- 
ried away in ungovernable ecstacy, or laid low in^a state of 
suspension and debasement, by means of such material sub- 
stances as are here enumerated. 

But, to proceed with your answers, you say, " SJZz/, 

'* And this is what chiefly concerns our immediate argument, 
*' all those functions which operate through the organs of sense 
" are of a definite and peculiar nature j and so totally unlike those 
" which the Phrenologists would furnish with like instruments, 
" as to make the inference of their being actually so furnished 
" in the highest degree improbable and extravagant." — In part 
of this statement, I cordially agree with you, viz. that the 
functions of the senses are of a definite and peculiar nature^ 
and that the functions of the internal organs must be equally 
definite and precise, otherwise they cannot be supposed to 
exist ; accordingly, I am quite ready to peril the cause of 
Phrenology upon the fact, that Hope is as different from 
Fear, Benevolence from Combativeness, Self-esteem from Ve- 
neration, Tune from Causality, as Seeing is from Hearing ; 
and that all these feelings, emotions, and intellectual powers, 
are also as precise in their nature as the senses. No doubt, 
you confound and confuse the phrenological faculties in a 
very ingenious and imposing manner ; but you do not 
cite the recorded descriptions of them, and prove that 



30 LETTER FKOM GEORGE COMBE 

they are really what you represent them to be. With two 
exceptions, to be afterwards noticed, you give your own ac- 
count of the faculties, and pass it off for mine. It is neces- 
sary only to compare the work reviewed with your pages to 
be convinced of this. 

You deny that the phrenological faculties are primitive 
principles of mind, or distinguishable from each other. Let 
us inquire, then, what other philosophers have said regard- 
ing these powers. As to 

Amativeness, You admit that " injuries of the cerebel- 
" lum generally seem to affect this propensity,"" (p. 314.) 
and of course cannot well dispute that it is a distinct feeling. 
Mr Stewart admits it. (Outlines, p. 82.) 

Philoprogenitweness This is admitted by Reid and 

Stewart. (Outlines, p. 99.) 

Concentrativeness is stated by the Phrenologists them- 
selves as unascertained. 

Adhesiveness is admitted by Mr Stewart in his Outhnes, 
page 87, as " the desire of society;" by Dr Thomas Brown 
in Lecture 67 ; and by Lord Kames, in his Sketches, under 
the title of " an appetite for society," vol. II. p. 153. 

Combativeness is admitted by Dr Reid, and by Mr Stewart 
(Outlines, p. 105.), under the name of " sudden resentment ; 
and Dr Thomas Brown gives a beautiful and accurate de- 
scription of it, under the name of " instant anger^' vol. 
III. p. 324. Lord Kames treats of it under the name of 
" courage^'" vol. I. p. 42. 48, 

Destructiveness. — This propensity is admitted by Lord 
Kames, under the name of '' an appetite Jhr hunting,'''' vol. 
I. p. 86 ; and " the principle of malevolence y"* vol. II. p. 
178, and by Dr Brown, Lect. 72. 

Constructiveness. — This is not adverted to by metaphysi- 
cians as an original principle ; but by writers on insanity it 
is generally recognised. (See the citation from Fodere, p. 21 
of this Letter.) 

5 



TO FRANCIS JEFFllEY, ES(i. 31 

Acquisitiveness. — This is disputed by Mv Stewart and Dr 
Brown, but admitted by Lord Karnes under the name of 
*' a sense of property^'' and as "an appetite for storing up 
« things of use," vol. I. p. 126. In the " System of Phren- 
" ology," p. 139, I have cited Esquirol, Acrel, Dr Rush, 
and the " Journal de Paris, ^"^ as describing its diseased ma- 
nifestations. 

Secretiveness is very accurately described by Lord Bacon 
in his essay " On Cunning." 

Self-esteem Dr Reid and Mr Stewart, (Outlines, p. 90,) 

treat of this sentiment under the designation of the " Desire 
" of Power."*' Dr Thomas Brown calls it " Pride," and de- 
jGnes it as " that feeling of vivid pleasure which attends the 
" consciousness of our excellence," vol. III. p. 300. Lord 
Karnes refers to it as the " Sense of Dignity," vol. I. p. 116 ; 
and again under the name of " Pride," vol. I. p. 344. 

Love of Approbation. — This sentiment corresponds to the 
" Desire of Esteem" of Dr Reid and Mr Stewart, and to 
the " Desire of Glory" of Dr Thomas Brown. Lord Kames 
calls it, " the Appetite for Praise^' vol. II. p. 192. 

Cautiousness is described by Lord Kames with perfect cor- 
rectness under the name of " Fear." " All weak animals," 
says he^ '' are endowed with a principle of fear, which prompts 
" them to shun danger ; and fear, the first passion disco- 
" VERED IN AN INFANT, is raised by every new face ; the infant 
" shrinks, and hides itself in the bosom of its nurse," vol. II. 

p. 177. Dr T. Brown ranks " Melancholy'''' among the pri- 
mitive emotions, which is one of the effects of this faculty in 
a state of constant but not violent activity. In all works on 
insanity, *' Melancholy" is admitted in the classification of 
mental diseases. 

Benevolence is admitted by Reid, Stewart, and by Brown, 
Lect. 59. 

Veneratlo7i is treated of by Lord Kames as " a Sense of 
" Deity," vol. IV. p. 201. It is not adverted to as an ori- 
ginal principle by Stewart, Reid, or Brown ; but " Piety," as 



32 LETTER FHOM GEORGE COMBE 

a distinct sentiment or affection, is recognised by hundreds 
of authors on human character, from Virgil downwards. Es- 
quirol, and other writers on insanity, describe its diseased 
states. 

Hope is adverted to as a primitive principle by Stewart. 
Outhnes, p. 232. 

Ideality corresponds to Lord Kames' '« Senses of Grace 
and Taste, vol. I. p. 196 ; to Dr Thomas Brown's *' oH- 
" ginal Emotion of Beauty " vol. III. p. 134 — 5 ; and au- 
thors on insanity describe its diseased affections. 

Wonder is noticed by Dr Adam Smith (History of As- 
tronomy, p. 2), as a sentiment ; Dr Thomas Brown ad- 
mits it as an original emotion, vol. III. p. 59 ; and Lord 
Kames expressly mentions it as an original feeling of the 
mind. 

Conscientiousness corresponds to the moral sense or emo- 
tion of the metaphysicians. Cud worth, Hutcheson, Kames, 
Reid, Stewart, and Brown, all admit it. Lord Kames says, 
" the moral sense is born with us, and so is taste ; yet both 
" of them require much cultivation,'" vol. I. p. 196 ; and 
the diseases of it are described in works on. insanity. 

Firmness is not described by the mietaphysicians ; but 
firmness, perseverance, obstinacy, stubbornness, are recog- 
nised by many authors and observers as fundamental traits 
of character, and these are all referable to this faculty. 

Individuality — higher and lower — which you define to be 
" an instant and rapid observation and disentanglement of 
" fleeting events, or compUcated appearances," (p. 309), 
corresponds nearly to the " desire ofknowledge" of the me- 
taphysicians. Lord Kames speaks of " an appetite for 
« knowledge,'' vol. II. p. 192. 



Form, 

Size, 

Weigh 

Colour 

Locality, 



IV ^-^ 7/ L ^^^^^ are not recognized by metaphysical 
Colouring, [writers. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 83 

Order corresponds to Lord Karnes's sense of '« Or- 
der," vol. IV., p. 125, and of " Symmetry," vol. I., 
p. 116. 

rp ' > These are not recognized by metaphysicians. 

Language is admitted by Mr Stewart " as an auxiliary 
^^ faculty and principle," {Outlines, p. 68) ; and Dr Thomas 
Brown'^s power of '' Simple Suggestion" includes the whole, 
from Individuality downwards. 

Comparison. — Malebranche and Lord Bacon have both 
discriminated a '^ radical distinction" betwixt minds ; " that 
^' some have greater power, and are more fitted for the ob- 
" servation of the differences^ others for the observation of 
" the resemblances of things." (Quoted in System of Phre- 
nology^ pp. 354 — 5.) This power of observing " resem- 
blances" is Comparison. 

Causality^ — This and Comparison correspond to the 
power of '' Relative Suggestion"" oi Dr Thomas Brown. 
Lord Kames speaks of a " Sense of Cause^"" vol. IV. 
p. 103. 

Wit is the " Sense of the Ludicrous''' of the metaphysi- 
cians. Lord Kames admits '' a Sense of Ridicule.'''* 

Imitation is recognized by almost all writers on the mind. 

In fact, twenty of the phrenological faculties are recog* 
nized by Lord Kames alone. 

To return to your objections to the phrenological facul- 
ties : — " Our perception of sounds," you say, " is quite in- 
" dependent of our perception of colours, odours, or tastes ; 
" and would be precisely what it is, though none of those per- 
" ceptions, or the objects of them, existed in the universe. It is 
'^ in truth this palpable separation and independence of these dif- 
" ferent classes of sensations which leads us to describe the ca- 
" pacity of receiving them as a separate function or faculty of 
" the mind." — P. 263. To all this I readily accede ; but when 
you say, that, '^ in this respect, the case of the imaginary faculties 
" of the Phrenologists is not only in no degree analogous, but 
" directly the reverse," I simply refer you to the authorities 
just cited, which prove, that the existence of at least sevevi-^ 

c 



34 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

tenths of them, as " separate and independent classes^' of 

emotions or intellectual powers, is actually admitted by the 

most accurate and profound metaphysicians of Britain. 

Immediately after the passage last cited, you proceed : — 
" In this way it is obvious, that our knowledge of the organ 
" (of an external sense) is antecedent to our knowledge of the 
" faculty, and that it is truly by reference to Xhe former that the 
" latter is recognized and determined." 

There is much reason to doubt the soundness of this pro- 
position. The infant mind knows that it sees, hears, smells, 
tastes, and feels long hefore it knows that it has optic, audi- 
tory, olfactory, gustatory, and sentiaiory nerves. In fact, 
mankind could not have assigned functions to the organs of 
sense at all, until after they had experienced and discrimi- 
nated the sensations ; because the organ, contemplated by it- 
self^ is a mere unmeaning mass of matter. Imagine that you 
were to present the ear to a man born deaf, and to desire 
him to describe the use of it, could he do so ? and yet this 
is a fair and appropriate example of the possibility of discov- 
ering the faculty by antecedeiitly knowing the organ. 

You tell us that, in this respect also, the case of the phre- 
nological faculties is " not only in no degree analogous, but 
^^ directly the reverse. As to these, it must be admitted that we 
^' have no antecedent knowledge of the existence of any mate- 
" rial organs ; and the existence of the faculties, therefore, must 
" be assumed on quite different data, if it is not rather imagined 
" without any reason at all." — P. 263. 

The order of Dr GalPs discoveries was the following. He 
first distinguished different mental talents and dispositions 
in his brothers, sisters, and school-fellows ; secondly^ he ob- 
served differences in the forms of their heads ; thirdly^ he 
ascertained that the forms indicated particular developments 
of brain ; and, lastly^ he ascertained, by extensive observa- 
tion, that particular forms and particular talents or dispo- 
sitions, were concomitant in all sane and healthy individuals. 
This is exactly analogous to the real method with the senses. 
We first know that we see, and then, *' by anatomy and ex- 
periment," discover the connexion of the optic nerve with 
this operation. After the principle of distinct organs is de- 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 35 

termined, we may infer, that a particular unappropriated 
part of the brain is an organ, before we know its functions ; 
but this knowledge does not enable us at once to designate 
its uses.* 

Near the beginning of your article the following sentence 
occurs : — " If it were asserted that every man detected 
'^ cheating at play would be found to have the figure of a nine 
" of diamonds in the transverse section of the nail of his great- 
" toe, we suspect there are not many people who would think it 
" worth while to verify the fact by experiment." — P. 256 ; and 
you insinuate by this, that it is equally idle to look for the 
organs of the mental faculties in the brain. There are 
three distinctions, however, between the cases, which are 
worth noticing. In the First place, it is a well-established 
principle in physiology, that different functions are never 
performed by the same organ. The optic nerve does not 
both see and hear ; and we already know, that the great-toe 
performs a certain function, — that of muscular motion, — 
distinct from cheating at cards. Secondly, the brain has no 
ascertained function, if it is not the organ of mind. Dr Ro- 
get, your fellow-labourer in the refutation of Phrenology, 
says, that " the brain is still as incomprehensible in itsfunc^ 
" tions as it is subtile and complex in its anatomy." — (Art. 
Cranioscopy in Sup. to Encyc. Brit.) Thirdly, Consciousness 
localizes the mind in the head, although it does not reveal 
what organs are in the interior of the skull ; ard as the brain 
is found, by observation, to occupy that cavity, there are 
much better reasons, even a 'priori, for looking for the or- 
gans of mind in the encephalon than in the nail of the great- 
toe. 

The next objection is, that " so far from supplying ori- 

" ginal, definite, and independent impressions, the greater part 
'^ of the phrenological faculties presuppose the existence of such 



* You have one merit, however, that of consistency in your positions, which 
it is but fair to acknowledge. You maintain, that knowledge of the organ 
must precede knowledge of the faculty ; but as you admit some faculties in the 
mind of which you do not know the organs, you very properly deny that they 
have organs at all. This, at least, is consistency in error. 



36 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

" impressions, and seem to have little other function than to mo- 
" dify or direct the functions of other faculties. Thus, Love of 
" Approbation presupposes an habitual communication of sen- 
" timents with other men ; — Veneration, a custom of observing 
•' and comparing the powers and qualities of different beings ; — 
'' Acquisitiveness, the general development of the idea of pro- 
*' perty ; — and Cautiousness, an experience of the occasions and 
" consequences of many forms of danger." — P. 263. 

I admit the soundness of the greater number of these ob- 
servations; but what then.? — Do not the eyes presuppose 
light, and objects to be seen, — the stomach hunger, and ob- 
jects to be eaten, — the horns of the buffalo enemies to be 
overcome, and the claws of the lion prey to be caught and 
devoured ? and are we to infer from this, that these different 
instruments are not primitive institutions of nature, but fash- 
ioned by the animals themselves, after the occasions for us- 
ing them have occurred ? If the Creator framed man for the 
obvious purpose of living in society, — of comparing himself 
with other beings, — of subsisting upon property, and of oc- 
casionally encountering dangers, what could be more reason- 
able than to bestow on him, in anticipation of these circum- 
stances, the primitive faculties and organs to which you here 
object ? Could be make these for himself after he came to 
need them, or ought the work of creation to have proceeded 
piecemeal, each faculty being supplied for the first time only 
when a demand was made for its services ? 

You enter into a train of gratuitous assertion and con- 
fused argument to establish the unreasonableness of admit- 
ting several of the phrenological faculties as primitive prin- 
ciples of mind. I might simply refer to the authorities al- 
ready cited, which show that principles precisely similar to 
by far the greater number of them have been recognized by 
the profoundest metaphysicians of the present and preceding 
ages, and, on this account, doubt whether your dicta on 
this subject should be received in opposition to the opinions 
of so many d istinguished men. But it may be worth while 
briefly to examine a few of your positions, and to judge of 
them by their intrinsic merits. 

You say that " our old philosophers were all pretty well 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 37 

** agreed, that it was the same principle (namely Benevolence), 
"^' that was, in every case, at the bottom of our regard and affec- 
" tion for sentient beings of all descriptions ; though it was va- 
'^ riously modified by a consideration of the different qualities of 
" the objects to which it was directed, and the different relations 
'' in which they might happen to stand to us ; and when their 
" attention was called to the distinctions that might be pointed 
^' out between the kind of love they bore to their children and 
'' that they felt for their parents, or the attachment they cherish- 
'^ ed to their young female friends, as compared with their an- 
*' cient male ones, — or to the worthies of their own country and 
*^ those of foreign lands, — or to inferiors and superiors of their 
^' own or of other races, thei/ thoiight all this pretty well explained 
" by saying, that it was the general benevolent feeling 
'* modified, in the case of children, by a sense of the weakness , 
'' innocence, and dependence of their condition ; in the case of pa- 
'' rents, by respect for their experience and authority, and grati- 
'^ tude for the obligations they had conferred ; — in the case of 
" young women, by emotions of sex ; — of our own countrymen, 
'* by associations of patriotic partiality," &c. — P. ^IQd. 

Now, in the first place, it is not true that the old philoso- 
phers gave any such explanation as is here laid in their 
names. They admitted sexual love, love of children, and 
desire of society, as distinct principles from Benevolence; 
and you are not supported by them in asserting that all 
these are mere modifications of one general benevolent feel- 
ing. But, in point of fact, you only intend to maintain this 
doctrine, and do not in reality do so. The benevolent feeling, 
you say, is modified ; — by what ? — hy itself^ — if there be only 
one general feeling. — But this is not what you allege ; — it is 
modified, you say, in the case of children, by " a sense of 
weakness^''' (Philoprogenitiveness) ; in the case of parents, 
by " respect for their experience and authority,'"' (Venera- 
tion) ; in the case of young women by " emotions of sex," 
(Amativeness) ; of our own countrymen, " hy associations 
of patriotic partiality,'''* (Adhesiveness). All these modify- 
ing feelings then must necessarily subsist distinct^ not only 
from Benevolence, but from each other, otherwise there is no 
sense in your words. The phrenological analysis of these 
mental affections is, that they arise from Benevolence, act- 
ing in combination with the other faculties now specified ; 



38 LETTER PROM GEORGE COMBE 

and this is precisely your doctrine also, if you distinctly un- 
derstood it yourself. 

On page 264 you say, our love, " considered simply as 

'' love, may be strong or weak, sober or frantic, grave or gay. 
'^ All that depends, of course, upon the shape and size of its 
" own peculiar organs ; but its constancy is the concern of an 
" entirely different faculty, which has a goodly organ of its own 
^' in another region of the skull, and has no more connexion 
'^ with it, physically or metaphysically, than smelling has with 
feeling." All this you are pleased to designate as a strong case 

of absurdity. But on p. 9.QB, after the observations just 

cited about love of children, love of parents, love of young 

women, &c., you continue, — '' With regard to the con- 
*^ stancy of these attachments, again, that was generally sup- 
^' posed to depend partly on the judgment or deliberation with 
" which they had been formed, and partly on what might be 
" called \\\Q firmness or gravity of the character to which they 
" belonged." — P. 265. Now, can any thing be plainer than 

that here you yourself admit the constancy to depend on some- 
thing differentjromthe affections themselves? — It depends, you 
say, " partly on judgment," and " partly on firmness or gra- 
vity of character f ' and, if so, how can you possibly charge 
the Phrenologists with absurdity for saying, that constancy 
in love depends on Adhesiveness, acting along with Intellect, 
directing it to proper objects, and with Firmness, which pro- 
duces steadiness or gravity of character ? Does it not afford 
a strong presumption in favour of Phrenology, that, whenever 
you write sense concerning the mind, you fall, by inevitable 
necessity, and altogether unknowingly to yourself, into an ex- 
act accordance with its doctrines ? Will you favour me by 
now reading p. 266 of the Review, commencing at the top, 
and ending two-thirds down ? That passage certainly carries 
a sting ; but if it does not prick its author, it is innocuous ; 
for it has not touched the Phrenologists. 

Memory is the next topic of your animadversions. You 
maintain that there is such «' a thing as a good memory in 
general ;'* and are very severe upon the phrenological theory 
of this function of the mind. Your doctrines, however, 
are so utterly disowned by experience and disproved by 



facts, that I reckon it a mere waste of words to refute them. 
The phrenological doctrine is, that Memory is merely a 
mode of activity of the various intellectual faculties; it 
'' implies a new conception of impressions previously received, 
" attended with the idea of past time, and consciousness of their 
" former existence, and it follows the order of the events as they 
*^ happened in nature. Each organ will enable the mind to re- 
'^ call the impressions which it served at first to receive. Thus, 
" the organ of Tune will recall notes formerly heard, and give 
'*■ the memory of music. Form will recall figures formerly 
" observed, and give the memory of persons, of pictures, or of 
'^ crystals, and produce a talent for becoming learned in matters 
^' connected with such objects. Individuality will give the me- 
'^ mory of facts, and render a person skilled in history, both na- 
" tural and civil. A person in whom Causality is powerful 
'^ will possess a natural memory for metaphysics. Hence, there 
'^ may be as many kinds, of memory as there are Knowing and 
'^ Reflecting Organs. As the recollection of facts and occur- 
" rences is what is commonly meant, in popular language, by a 
'^ great memory, individuals so gifted will generally be found 
" to possess a good development of Individuality, and probably 
^' of Language to express them." — Si/stem of Phrenology, p. 393. 

I presume you are aware that Dr Thomas Brown, no 

mean authority in metaphysics, has done away with Memory 

as a general faculty, and substituted for it his principles of 

relative suggestion. As to the organs, again, Dr Watts 

seems to have anticipated, by a very acute conjecture, the 

real philosophy of Memory. He says, " It is most probable 

^' that those very fibres of the brain, which assist at the first 
^' idea or perception of an object, are the same which assist also 
" at the recollection of it ; and then it will follow that the me- 
^' mory has no special part of the brain devoted to its own ser- 
'' vice, but uses all those in general which subserve our sensa- 
*' tion, as well as our thinking and reasoning powers." — 
P. 18. 

You proceed : — " It follows by necessary consequence, that 

" it is by the nose we remember smells, and by the eye that we 
'' have memory of colours," and you then exclaim, " Can it 
" really be thought necessary to inquire into the alleged proofs 
" of propositions so manifestly preposterous }" You might as 

well have said that it is by the legs we remember a walk. 
But would any person reading your last remark suppose that 
the following sentence occui*s in the work you are reviewing? — 
" Whatever perceptions or impressions received from external 

6 



40 LETTEE FROM GEOllGE COMBE 

*' objects can be renewed by an act of recollection, cannot de^ 
" pend exclusively upon the senses ; because the organs of sense 
'^ are not subject to the will, and never produce the impressions 
" which depend upon their constitution, except when excited by 
*' an external cause." — System of Phrenology, p. 262. 

You first object against Phrenology, that its faculties are 
too numerous, and then abuse it because they are too few. 
The re-statement of a simple proposition in physiology will 
suffice in answer to all you advance on these topics. Differ- 
ent functions are never performed by the same organ, and 
hence there are distinct nerves for hearing, seeing, smelling, 
tasting, feeling ; and you seem also to have heard of the dis- 
covery which Dr Spurzheim predicted before it was made, 
that there are nerves of voluntary motion apart from those of 
feeling ; and you half admit Amativeness to be connected with 
the cerebellum. Follow out this principle then, and you will 
arrive at sound conclusions. There must be a distinct organ 
for every separate and primitive mental affection, however 
great or small the number may be. The number and nature 
of them is determined by the Creator ; and even the Editor 
of the Edinburgh Review makes but a sorry figure in ar- 
raigning the wisdom of His institutions. If the same nerve 
does not both see and hear, neither is it probable that the 
same part of the brain will feel both Benevolence and Ha- 
tred. Whenever, therefore, you are able to point out clearly 
and definitely, an independent mental principle for which no 
organ has been discovered, you are certainly entitled to say 
that the phrenological system is still defective, which, you 
will observe, we also distinctly admit ; or, on the other hand, 
if you point out a part of the brain which bears no relation 
in its size to the vigour of any known faculty, you are 
equally authorised to designate this as an organ of which the 
functions are not discovered. 

You, however, say, that, " If a separate faculty and organ 

'^ is insisted on for every separate and distinct 2)e7'ceptio7i or idea, 
(this is your statement, and not that of the Phrenologists,) " we 
" really see no reason for not having an organ not only for every 
*' shade of colour, but for every diversity of quality by which 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 41 

*' external objects are distinguished — ^for the smoothness of oil 
" as distinguished from the smoothness of water — the soft- 
" ness of silk as different from the softness of wool — or the 
'' roughness of a second-day's beard from the roughness of 
'^ a rough-cast wall. Our thoughtful readers," you continue, 
*' will see at once how deep this goes into the whole theory." 

In answer, I observe, 1st, That the Phrenologists do not as- 
sign a separate organ to each " distinct perception or idea;^'' 
the olfactory nerve serves to smell both balm and assafoetida, 
because both are smells; and the organ of Colour to per- 
ceive both " the red of a rose"" and " the blue of the sky,'* 
because both are colours. Secondly, there is an organ for 
every real " diversity of quality by which external objects 
" are distinguished ;" for example, there is one organ for 
perceiving Colour, and another for perceiving Size ; and these 
distinct organs, so far as we can guess at final causes, appear 
to have been instituted by the Creator, just because the men- 
tal aiFections excited by these qualities are altogether dis- 
tinct ; the notion of the size of St Paul's not being in any 
degree a modification of the notion of its colour. This may 
appear to you very absurd ; but in point of principle it is 
not more so than the institution of one set of nerves to move 
the hand, and another set to feel with, after it is put in mo- 
tion. Thirdly, you must have had a poor notion of the 
discrimination of your " thoughtful readers," when you ima- 
gined that they could not discover that " the smoothness" of 
oil is not a different quality from " the smoothness" of water ; 
because smoothness is just smoothness, softness is softness, 
and roughness roughness, whether occurring in oil, water, or 
a beard. 

On pages 274, 5, 6, you are facetious on the faculty of 
Concentrativeness ; but the whole appearance of absurdity 
which you have given to that subject owes its existence to 
your erroneous representation of it. In the System of Phre- 
nology it is stated again and again, that the faculties and 
organs were discovered by observation, and not invented. 
On page 77, under the title " Concentrativeness," it is said, 

that " Observation proves that this is a distinct organ, because 
" it is sometimes found large, when the organs of Philoprogeni- 



# 



LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 



'' tiveness and Self-esteem, lying below and above it, are small, 
" and sometimes small when these are large." The ideas of Dr 
Gall and those of Dr Spurzheim, concerning ihejaculty con- 
nected with it, are then stated, after which my own observa- 
tions are mentioned ; as these differ from the ideas of Dr Spurz- 
heim it is said. ^' From this and some other objections of Dr 

'' Spurhzeim, which I pass over without comment, I am con- 
" vinced that he has not correctly apprehended the quality of 
" mind which I designate by Concentrativeness. This must no 
" doubt be my fault ; but it affords a good reason for not pro- 
'^. longing disputation." The concluding paragraph is as fol- 
lows : — " The leading objects of these discussions is to enable 
'^ the reader to form an idea of the mental quality, if it be such, 
" intended to be designated by Concentrativeness, so that he 
" may be able to decide on the function of the organ by his own 
'^ observations. It acts along with the feelings as well as with 
" the intellect. Abstract reasoning is not admitted in Phre- 
" nology as proof in favour of any organ of faculty ; and 
'^ I have observed, that, by leading the mind insensibly to 
" adopt a conclusion for or against particular ideas, it produces 
^' a tendency to seek support for opinions rather than truth, 
" and thereby retards the progress of accurate investigation. 
'' The function is stated as only probable, and stands open for 
'^ further elucidation." — System of Phrenology, p. 84. 

Now, in this discussion the only point given out by Dr 
Gall, Dr Spurzheim, and myself, as certain, is the existence 
of the organ ; and we all state Xhejaculty connected with it 
as undetermined. Our views regarding ihejaculty are not so 
irreconcilable as you seem to imagine;* but assuming, for the 
sake of argument, that they are at utter variance, what con- 
elusion do we arrive at ? Does Dr Gall say that his faculty is 
determined f Does Dr Spurzheim assert that a different power 
is proved to be connected with the organ, and do I maintain 
that a third mental quality is ascertained to be situated there ? 
If we did, then you would have good ground for questioning 
the soundness of our observations and inductions. But the very 
opposite is the fact — Dr Gall states the function as unascer- 
tained, Dr Spurzheim mentions it as " only conjectural," 



• In point of fact, it has been shewn in an able Essay in the Phrenological 
Journal, vol. III., p. 191, that Concentrativeness includes Inhabitiveness, and 
that there is no inconsistency in the views advanced in regard to this faculty. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 43 

and I, as merely <' probable ;" so that the point we arrive at 
is, that the faculty is not at all ascertained, just because our 
observations do not coincide. What are we to think, then, of 
your fairness as a critical judge, when you select this faculty 
as the only one which you venture to describe, at length, in our 
own words, and represent it as a specimen of the accordance 
and consistency of our views upon other faculties, regarding 
which we are all agreed ? Nothing but the spirit of parti- 
zanship, the feeling that in this contest you are a party at 
the bar of public opinion, struggling to maintain a position 
fast giving way beneath you, could have induced you to re- 
sort to such a shift. 

You are particularly eloquent also on the supposed discre- 
pancies of doctrine between Dr Gall, Dr Spurzheim, and me, 
about the functions of Individuality. A brief explanation 
will serve to place this matter in its proper light. Before a 
phrenological faculty and organ are regarded as finally settled, 
there are three points to be determined ; first, the situation of 
the organ ; secondly, the kind of mental manifestations that 
accompany its development ; and, thirdly, the metaphysical 
analysis of the manifestatipns. In several instances, that of 
Wit,* for example, the first and second points are complete- 
ly ascertained, while the third, being attended with greater 
difficulty, is open to considerable difference of opinion. In- 
dividuality stands at present in a similar situation. Phreno- 
logists are agreed on the kind of manifestations that accom- 
pany the organs when large, and on the mental deficiencies 
that result from their being small ; but they are not at one 
on the ultimate principle involved in them 

In connexion with Concentrativeness, you become witty 

• It is worth noticing in passing, how very little you are acquainted with the 
contents of the work you are refuting. In a note, p. 313 of the Review, you say, 
'* It farther appears from the same valuable document, (Dr Spurzheim's last work 
" on Anatomy,) that a new orgarij entitled Mirthfulness, has been discovered 
-'^ since Mr Combe's book was written — though we cannot exactly ascertain 
" which of the old ones has been suppressed to make room for it." On p. 364 
of the System, in treating of the organ of Wit, Dr Spurzheim's own words are 
quoted : " I propose the name Mirthfulness, or Gayness, to indicate the pecu- 
" liar feeling of wit." 



4|j LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

on the *' natural language of the faculties." That doctrine 

is correctly announced by you, when you say, in derision of 

course, " The great practical truth is, that when any faculty 

*' is in a state of activity, the head, at least, if not the whole 
'' body, is moved in the direction of the external organ of that 
" faculty." You ridicule the statement, " that when those per- 
'^ sons who really possess the power of Concentration, while 
^' preparing to miake a powerful and combined exertion of all 
" their powers, naturally draw the head and body backwards 
" in the line of this organ." On the assertion, that " preachers 
^^and advocates in whom it is large, while speaking with ani- 
" mation, move the head in the line of Concentrativeness and 
'' Individuality, or straight backwards and forwards," you re- 
mark, '^this, we should humbly conceive, they must necessarily 
'' do, if they move them qftener than once in either of the op- 
'* posed directions." This at first sight appears not only witty, 

but conclusive ; but it is really at variance with fact. If you 
will observe more narrowly than you appear to have done, 
you will find that there are preachers and advocates who, al- 
though they very frequently move their heads backwards and 
forwards, scarcely ever, by any chance, do so " in the straight 
«' line." Those in whom Secretiveness predominates, in bring- 
ing the head forward, present the face at an angle to the au- 
dience, and look to the side from the corners of their eyes ; 
they draw back the head in a sidelong direction also ; those 
again, in whom Combativeness predominates, move the head 
backwards and forwards in the line of that organ ; and those 
in whom Love of Approbation predominates, carry their 
heads backwards with a swinging motion, also in the line of 
the organ ; Concentrativeness in all these cases being defi- 
cient. Such statements, I am av^are, must appear to you 
absurd, because you have never taken the pains to observe 
their truth ; but this is accounted for by the quotation from 
Dr Brown, p. 10. 

You ask, " When a man seeks the applause of assembled 
" multitudes in the senate, on the battle-field, on the stage, 
" is he irresistibly moved to go to the left about, and ad- 
" vance the posterior curves of his cranium ?" I answer no — 
it is only Mr Jeffrey, and not the Phrenologists, who have 
said so. You proceed, — <* Has a proud man a natural ten- 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 45 

*< dency to move backwards ?'' I have not said that he has ; 
my statement is, that he has a natural tendency " to carry 
*' his head high and reclining backwards."*'* To designate 
unwarrantable assumption of consequence in any individual, 
is it not common to say that " that man carries his head too 
*' high ?" and do not very proud men, in point of fact, 
walk erectly, and carry their heads high ? You next ask, 
" Are constant friends and lovers generally to be found drift- 
<< ing down, stern foremost, on the objects of their affections?'' 
Certainly not; but this again is your witticism, and it is really 
a good one. Look at the pictures of Castor and Pollux, in 
which the one stands with his arm passed over the shoul- 
der of the other, the two heads touching at a point a little 
behind and above the ear ; or place any two persons, no mat- 
ter although of the same sex, in both of whom the organs 
of Adhesiveness are large, in this position, and you will soon 
discover whether or not this is the natural attitude of attach- 
ment. It is unnecessary to proceed farther on this topic. 
Artists, who make it their study to observe nature, have 
recognised the correctness of the doctrine about natural lan- 
guage ; and the whole ridicule with which it is invested in 
your pages arises absolutely from your passing off gross ab- 
surdities of your own invention for statements of mine. 

On the subject of Fear and Hope, you enter into a long 
dissertation, chiefly a paraphrase of a passage from Hume''s 
Essays, quoted in the " System," and arrive at the conclu- 
sion, that " the truth is, that the two principles are siibstan- 

" tially one and the same, and necessarily imply each other, as much 
" as heat and cold do. The increment of the one is necessarily the 
'' decrement of the other. If^ in the contemplation of danger, a 
'^ man fears much, he, by necessary consequence, hopes little — 
" if he hopes much, he fears little. It is no matter which form 
" of expression is used, since they both obviously mean the same 
/' thing, and indicate exactly the same state of mind or feeling. 
" They are the two buckets in the well, and it is not less ab- 
'' surd to ascribe them to different principles, than it would be 
'* to maintain that the descent of the one bucket depends on 

* System, p. ICl. 



46 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

^^ causes quite separate from that which occasions the ascent of 
" the other : — and the superfluity of the Phrenologists in these 
" instances, is but faintly typified by that of the wiseacre who 
^' made two holes in his barn-door, one to let his cat in to kill 
" the mice, and the other to let her out." The common edition 
of the story is, that the wiseacre made a large hole for the 
cat, and a small one for the kitten ; but let that pass, as you 
are not very particular in your quotations. The question 
is, whether Hope and Fear are one feeling or two ? 

There is a maxim in philosophy, ex nihilo nihil ^t, which, 
in plain English, means, that something never arises out of 
nothing. Cold then is not a positive substance, but the mere 
negative of heat ; silence is the negative of noise ; and rest 
the negative of motion : accordingly, cold, silence, and rest, 
not being entities, cannot become agents, or exhibit active qua- 
lities ; for this would infringe on the above maxim, which in 
philosophy is absolutely indisputable. If Fear then be the 
mere negation of Hope, it cannot be a positive feeling; it can 
produce no effects, and excite to no actions ; or if you reverse 
the case, and say that Hope is the negation of Fear, then it 
is the mere zero of that emotion ; it is nothing in itself, and 
can produce no consequences. But this is altogether at va- 
riance with the real phenomena of life. Fear, when violently 
excited, is an overwhelming passion ; Hope, when high upon 
the tiptoe, is a prodigiously strong positive emotion ; and 
both give rise to the most extensive consequences in human 
affairs. Your theory is the same as that which maintains 
Fear to be the negative of Courage, and Courage the nega- 
tive of Fear ; or that the mere absence of terror was all that 
constituted the heroic bravery of Nelson ; and that a man 
in the ecstacies of a panic experiencesno positive emotion, 
but is only negatively brave. 

With your permission I shall borrow from you the simile 
of the two buckets, and endeavour to apply it to better 
purpose than you do. I place Fear in the one bucket and 
Hope in the other. In the medium condition of ordinary 
life they hang in equilibrio ; when an object pregnant with 



TO FUANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. ' 47 

danger presents itself, Fear mounts up, and Hope sinks 
down ; when an agreeable prospect appears, Fear descends, 
and Hope rises. You should have had only one bucket in 
your well, and called it Fear when at the bottom, and Hope 
when at the top. On page 309, you say, *' What is Cau- 
" tiousness, but a quick sense of danger, a most prompt and vi- 
*' gilant circumspection for security }" This is an excellent de- 
finition ; but does it designate, as appropriately, the simple ne- 
gation of Hope } 

Let us next proceed to your commentary on the phrenolo- 
gical doctrine of the perception of Colour. In the System of 
Phrenology, p. 273, under the head of " Sight," the question 

is asked, " What, then, are the true functions of the eye ? 
*^ No organ of senseybrm^^ ideas. The eye, therefore, only re- 
^' ceives, modifies, and transmits the impressions of light; and 
" here its functions cease. Internal faculties form conceptions 
" of the figure, colour, distance, and other attributes of the ob- 
'' jects making the impressions, and the power of forming these 
" conceptions is in proportion to the perfection of the eyes and 
'' the internal faculties jointly, and not in proportion to the per- 
" fection of the eyes alone. Hence the lower animals, although 
" they have eyes equal in perfection to those of man, are not 
*^ able to form the ideas of the qualities of bodies, which he 
" forms by means of his internal faculties through the instru- 
" mentality of the eye, because in them the internal faculties are 
" wanting." 

Agiin, in treating of the organ of Colouring, it is 

said, that "Although the eyes are affected agreeably or dis- 
" agreeably by the different modifications of the beams of light, 
" or by colours, yet they do not conceive the relations of differ- 
" ent colours, their harmony or discord, and they have no 
" memory of them. Certain individuals are almost destitute of 
*^ the power of perceiving colours, who yet have the sense of 
" vision acute, and readily perceive other qualities in external 
" bodies, as their size and form." — System of Phrenology, p. 296. 

To this you object, that, *' So far is it from being true 

" that we do not perceive colour by the eye, that in reality it 
'^ is colour, and colour alone, that is the primary object of its 
" perceptions. What we see indeed is only light ; but light is 
" always coloured (if we include white as a colour), and the 
" different colours are in reality but so many kinds of light." — 
P. 287. " Colour, in short, is the only quality of light by 
'^ which we are ever made aware of its existence ; and to say 
" that we do not see colour by the eye, is in reality to say that 
'' we do not see at all; for the strict and ultimate fact is, that we 



48 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

*' iwver see any thing else." — P. 288. And again you say, 
" Take the case of sight first. It is true, as we have already 
" observed, that we see nothing but colour ; and accordingly, 
*' if all objects were of the same colour, both as to shade and in- 
" tensity, we certainly should never perceive their forms by the 
" eye."— P. 289. 

There is more ingenuity in these than in many of your 
other objections ; but still they are easily answered. It is 
not asserted by Phrenologists that the eye alcme is sufficient to 
perceive light. The statement is, that " it only receives, mo- 
difies, and transmits the impressions of light ;" of course, it 
transmits them to something else, which is stated to be the 
organ of Colouring. Assuming the position then, that 
light is colour, it will follow phrenologically, that light can- 
not be perceived without the joint operation of both the eye 
and the organ of Colouring ;- and, accordingly, nothing in 
opposition to this is stated in the phrenological works. It 
is expressly mentioned in the " System," p. 36, that " every 
{sane) individual possesses all the organs in a greater or less 
degree.'''' Now, suppose that in two persons the eyes are 
equally perfect, but that in one the organ of Colouring is 
very large, and in the other very small, it will follow that 
the impressions of light will be conveyed to both equally ; 
but that they will excite in the former a strong and in the 
latter only a feeble perception of colours. YoU object, 
however, that it is impossible that the latter can distinguish 
Jbrm^ readily by the eye, because his perception of colour 
being imperfect, and light being mere colour, he must be as 
deficient in general vision as in discriminating hues. I re- 
ply, that mere difference of shade is sufficient to enable us 
to perceive forms by the eye, as is proved by the arts of 
black-chalk drawing and copperplate printing ; and that for 
the perception of shades a much lozmr degree of the com- 
bined action of the eye and organ of Colouring will suffice 
than for acutely discriminating the relations of colours. 
This may be illustrated by the parallel case of sound. It 
h pretty generally admitted that mere sound is different 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 49 

fi-om melody, and yet melody is nothing but sound. It is 
sound, however, modulated in a particular manner ; and 
the perception of this modulation is a higher mental act than 
the perception of simple noise. Now, suppose the auditory 
apparatus and the organ of Tune to be both requisite for 
the perception of melody, it will follow phrenologically, that 
if two individuals possess the former equally, but differ in 
the degrees in which they enjoy the latter, they may both 
perceive sounds with acuteness, while the one may in addi- 
tion have a great perception of melody, and the other very 
little. To refute this view it will not suffice to assert meta- 
physically, that melody is mere sound, and that therefore it 
is absurd to say that a man can hear acutely while he is in- 
sensible to music. It is a sufficient answer to say, that the 
one implies a higher degree of perception than the other ; 
that a person may enjoy the lower, and yet be deficient in 
the higher degree ; and that the fact in nature actually is 
so. This, accordingly, is precisely what the Phrenologists 
teach in regard to colours. They maintain that perception 
of differences in shades arises from a low degree of com- 
bined action of the eye and organ of Colouring ; while 
discrimination of colours requires a higher degree of both ; 
just as mere sound is perceived by a slender endowment 
of the auditory apparatus and organ of Tune, w^hile a 
more ample portion of both is requisite for the percep- 
tion of melody. It is therefore quite intelligible in theory 
how " certain individuals, almost (not altogether, as 

" you seem ^o assume) destitute of the power of perceiving co- 
" lours, may yet have the sense of vision acute, and readily 
'^ perceive other qualities in external bodies, as their size and 
" form." This is asserted to be 3ifact in the System of Phren- 
ology, p. 296 ; and the explanation given is, that in them the 
organ of Colouring is not wanting, but small. But you do 
not grapple with the facts there stated, although the names 
and designations of several living individuals are furnished 
to you who are in this predicament. You pass all these 
over in silence ; and, as a set-off to them, favour us with a 



50 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

fact of your own. It, however, is too precious and import- 
ant to be dismissed without comment. In the System of 
Phrenology, p. 300, the following passage occurs : — " Mr 

'^ Jeffrey, in the article * Beauty/ already alluded to, informs us, 
" ' That colour is, in all cases, absolutely indifferent to the eye ;' 
•" and adds, ' that it is no doubt quite true, that, among painters 
" ' and connoisseurs, we hear a great deal about the harmony 
" 'and composition of tints, and the charms and difficulties of a 
" 'judicious colouring. In all this, however, we cannot help 
" ' thinking that there is no little pedantry and no little jargon' 
" Speaking of the natural gamut of colours, he continues, ' We 
'' * confess we have no faith in any of these fancies ; and be- 
" 'lieve, that if all these colours vrere fairly arranged, on a 
*' ' plain board, according to the most rigid rules of this sup- 
'' ' posed harmony, nobody but the author of the theory would 
" 'perceive the smallest beauty in the exhibition, or be the 
" ' least offended by reversing their collocation/ It is a curi- 
" ous fact, that the organ of Colouring in Mr Jeffrey's head is 
" actually depressed ; and it appears that, in the usual manner 
" of metaphysical writers, he has conceived his own feelings to 
" be an infallible standard of those of human nature in general." 

On this statement you make the following commentary in 

the Review : — " It is worth while perhaps to observe, that 

" in treating of this faculty, Mr Combe is pleased (at page 301) 
" to notice the case of an individual with whose speculations 
" on the beauty of colours he does not agree, and whose errors 
" on the subject he triumphantly accounts for by recording it 
" as a curious fact, ' that in his head the organ of Colouring 
" ' is ahsohitely depressed !' A more complete case of destitution 
" of the faculty could not of course be imagined ; and, accord- 
" ingly, the learned author proceeds most reasonably to infer, 
'^ that he must be in the condition of those unfortunate persons 
" *who cannot distinguish dark-brown from scarlet, or buff 
" ' from orange.' Now, without meaning to call in question 
" the fact of the depression in his skull, we happen to know 
" that the individual here mentioned has a remarkably fine and 
" exact perception of colours, so as to be able to match them 
*' from memory with a precision which has been the admira- 
" tion of many ladies and dress-makers. He has also an un- 
" common sensibility to their beauty ; and spends more time 
" than most people in gazing on bright flowers and peacocks' 
" necks, and wondering, he hopes innocently, what can be the 
'* cause of his enjoyment. Even the Phrenologists, we think, 
" must admit, that, in his case, it cannot be the predominance 
'' of the appropriate faculty; since they have ascertained that 
" he is totally destitute of the organ. But this belongs proper- 
" ly to the chapter of evidence.' 



TO FKANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 51 

This certainly does " belong to the chapter of evi- 
'* dence ;" and as one of the grand elements of credibility 
in a witness is consistency, I shall enter your case as 
an exception to Phrenology whenever you reconcile the 
palpable discrepancies of these statements. How could 
you assert in the Encyclopaedia, that '' Colour is in 
" all cases absolutely indifferent to the eye," if you were con- 
scious, when you wrote, of possessing " an uncommon sensi- 
" bility to their beauty f" How could you stigmatize as 
'^ pedantry and jargon" the doctrine of " the harmony and 
" composition of tints, and the charms and difficulties of a 
" judicious colouring,'* and assert, " that if all those colours 

'' were fairly arranged^ on a plain board, according to the most 
" rigid rules of this supposed harmony, nobody but the author 
" of the theory would perceive the smallest beauty in the exhibi- 
" tion, or be the least offended by reversing their collocation," 
" when all the time you enjoyed in yourself " a remarkably fine 
" and exact perception of colours, so as to be able to match them 
" from memory with a precision which has been the admira- 
" tion of many ladies and dress-makers ! ! !" Why, you must 

either have acquired a new talent since you wrote the 

article Beauty, now some ten years ago, and in that case the 

organ may have increased ; or must we adopt, as the only 

other alternative, the conclusion which you have drawn in 

regard to me, in the following terms ? — " We really have 

*' great difficulty in believing the author to be in good faith 
" with us, and suspect that few reflecting readers will be able 
" to get through ^ these statements' without many starts of im- 
'' patient surprise, and a general uneasy surmise that they are 
" a mere exercise of intellectual ingenuity, or an elaborate ex- 
^' periment on public credulity." — Review, p. 253. 

The limits necessarily prescribed to this Letter render it 
impossible for me to follow you through your long and con- 
fused objections to the organs of '' Size, Order, and 
" Weight," and to analyze and expose all the inconsist- 
encies into which you have fallen. In the spirit of partizan- 
ship, already commented on, you omit, or very briefly notice, 
the faculties stated by Phrenologists as ascertained, and 
fix upon those which they themselves distinctly mention as 



52 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

Still subjects of inquiry, and represent them as fair examples 
of their general science. This is particularly the case with 
Size and Weight ; the first of which is stated in the work 
you review to be only ''probable^'' and the second as " con- 
'' jectural." You omit, too, all mention of the facts by 
which the opinions advanced are supported ; and, in short, 
leave no means untried to mislead your readers as to the 
real merits of the System. In treating of Weight, you 
have done great injustice to the views of Mr Simpson 
on that subject. His essay is printed at full length in the 
Phrenological Journal, vol. II. p. 412, and is pretty fully 
quoted in my work ; and, with all deference to your sagaci- 
ty, it is impossible to read that production, and to attend im- 
partially to the facts by which the principles of it are support- 
ed, without being satisfied of the high probability of both fa- 
culty and organ. Phrenologists recognize the views of that 
paper as a valuable contribution to their science ; and it 
will be impossible for reflecting men, who are not absolute- 
ly blinded by prejudice, to peruse it without perceiving 
that it is a chapter of some importance added to the philoso- 
phy of mind. 

Passing over, therefore, ten pages of loose wrangling in 
the Review, let us approach your observations on the effects 
of Size in the organs, on the manifestations of the mind. You 
say, '' Their proposition is, that their thirty-six bumps are 

'' the organs of so many separate faculties, and that the 
" strength of the endowment is in exact proportion to the size 
" of the bump. Now, independent of all flaws in the theory, 
" we think it can be proved, by facts that admit of no denial, 
'^ that this proposition neither is nor can by possibility he true. 

^' In the.j^r*^ place/' you continue, "let us say a word about 
" Size. That the mefe bulk or quantity of matter, in such won- 
" derful and delicate structures, should be the exclusive mea- 
" sure of their value, without any regard to their quality or con- 
" dition, certainly must appear on the first statement to be a very 
" improbable allegation.'' This is a complete misrepresentation of 

the phrenological doctrine, which is, that, cceteris paribus^ Size 
is a measure of power. You studiously omit the qualificatiou 
of other things being equal, although this is constantly kept 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 58 

in view by Phrenologists : — You proceed, *^ We cannot 

" help suspecting that it was nothing but the plain impossi- 
*' bility of ascertaining any thing as to their structure and 
'' quality that drove our dogmatic theorists upon that bold pro- 
'' position. Their assumed organs,, however, are all buried 
" deep under skin and bone of an uniform appearance ; and 
'' having nothing, therefore, but Size left to go upon (at least 
" in the living subject), they seem to have even made up their 
'' minds to say that that was quite enough, and that nothing 
" else was to be regarded. In the next place, however, the pro-' 
" position is no less contrary to the analogy of all our known ov 
" gans than to general probability. The grand mamma Wolf, in 
'' the fairy tale, does indeed lean a little to the phrenological 
" heresy, w^hen she tells little Riding-hood that she has large 
" eyes to see her the better. But with this one venerable ex- 
" ception, we rather think it has never been held before that the 
" strength of vision depended on the size of the eye, the perfection 
*' of hearing on the magnitude of the ear, or the nicety of taste on 
^' the breadth of the tongue or palate." 

On page 258 of the Review, you say, " We see with our 

" eyes, hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, or the surface of 
" the whole body. These are facts, we think, which may be as- 
" sumed without argument or explanation. Anatomy and experi- 
*' ment show farther, that the sensibility of these organs depends 
" on the nerves which belong to them, on the optic and auditory 
" nerves, for example, as to seeing and hearing, or on the nerves 
" of touch for many other sensations." Your real proposition, then, 

must be, that, with the venerable exception of grand mamma 
Wolf, it has never been held before that the strength of vi- 
sion depends on the size of the optic nerves, the perfection 
of hearing on the magnitude of the auditory nerves, or 
the nicety of taste on the size of the gustatory nerves. 

In an early part of this Letter I observed, that your ob- 
jections have, in general, been anticipated by other oppo- 
nents of Phrenology, and refuted before you brought them 
forward. The following extract from a letter written by 
Dr A. Combe, and pubhshed in the Edinburgh and Leith 
Advertiser of 18th March, 1826, will serve at once to esta- 
blish this, and to answer your doctrine about the organs of 
sense : — " It is a fact," says he, " admitted by the highest 

" physiological authorities, and by the greatest authority of all — 
'^ Nature, that the functions of the five senses are executed with a 
" degree of acuteness and intensity exactly proportioned, ceteris 
" paribus, to the development of their respective organs. Monro, 



54 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

" Blumenbach, Soemmering', Cuvier, Magendie, Georget, and a whole 
'^ host of authors, might be quoted in proof, but one is enough ; 
'^ and, having Blumenbach at hand, I turn to the section on Smell, 
" and find as follows : — ' While animals of the most acute smell 
" 'have the nasal organs most extensively/ evolved, precisely the 
'' ' same holds in regard to some barbarous nations. For instance, 
'' ' in the head of a North-American Indian,' (represented in one 
" ' of his plates), ' the internal nares are of an extraordinary 
'' ' size,' &c. And again, * The nearest to this, in point of mag- 
'^ ' nitude, are the internal nares of the Ethiopians, from among 
'^ ' whom I have seen heads very different from each other, hut 
'^ ' each possessing a nasal organ much larger than that descrih- 
'^ ^ ed hy Soemmering.' — ' These anatomical observations ac- 
" " cord with the accounts giveji hy the most respectable travel- 
" ' lers concerning the wonderful acuteness of smell possessed hy 
" ' these savages' 

" In like manner, Dr Monro, primus, no mean authority to put 
" against a nameless pamphleteer, in treating, in his Comparative 
" Anatomy, of the large organ of smell in the dog, says, ^ the sensi- 
" ^ bility (of smell) seems to he increased in proportion to the sur- 
" 'face; and this will also be found to take place in all 
" ' THE OTHER SENSES/ A late French physiological writer is 
" equally explicit. In treating of the nerves, M. Georget says, 
'*^ ' The volume of these organs bears a uniform relation, in all the 
" ' different animals, to the extent zxid. force of the sensations and 
" ' movements over which they preside. Thus, the nerve of smell 
" ' in the dog is larger than the five nerves of the external senses 
'^ 'in man!" 

A large eye too takes in more light, and a large ear more 
impulses of air than small ones ; so that the venerable " Grand 
Mamma Wolf" really turns out to be a sounder physiological 
authority than the " Oracle" of the Edinburgh Review ! 

The principle, that size in the organ, cceter is paribus, deter- 
mines the power of manifestation is admitted by physiolo- 
gists to apply equally to the brain. Magendie says, " The 

" volume of the brain is generally in direct proportion to the capa- 
'** city of the mind. We ought not to suppose, however, that 
'' every man having a large head is necessarily a person of superior 
" intelligence, for there are many causes of an augmentation of the 
" volume of the head beside the size of the brain, but it is rarely 
*' found, that a man distinguished by his mental faculties has not a 
" large head. The only way of estimating the volume of the brain, 
'' in a living person, is to measure the dimensions of the skull ; 
" every other means, even that proposed by Camper, is uncertain." 
— Compendium of Physiology, p. 104, edition 1826. 

" All the world knows," you continue, " and the Phrenologists 
" themselves admit, that the vigour of any faculty may be improv- 



TO FUANCIS JEFEllEY, ESQ. 55 

'' ed by exercise and education ; and the strength of any propensity 
" by habitual indulgence, though these changes are not accompanied 
" by any increase in the size of the organ. But is not this admit- 
" ted and most familiar fact in absolute and glaring contradiction to 
" the fundamental assumption of the System ?" — P. 302. 

This objection is already answered in the following passage 

of the " System," of which, of course, you take no notice: — 

" Suppose that two individuals possess an organization exactly simi- 
" lar, but that one is highly educated, and the other left entirely to the 
*' impulses of nature, the former will manifest his faculties with 
" hig-her power than the latter ; and hence it is argued, that size is 
*' not in all cases a measure of energy. 

^' Here, however, the requisite of cceteris paribus does not hold. 
" An important condition is altered, and the Phrenologist uniformly 
" allows for the effects of education, before drawing positive conclu- 
" sions.* It may be supposed, that, if exercise thus increases 
" power, it is impossible to draw the line of distinction between 
'^ energy derived from this cause and that which proceeds from size 
" m the organs, and hence that the real effects of size can never be 
" determined. The answer to this objection is, that education may 
" cause the facul! .js to manifest themselves with the highest degree 
'' of energy which the size of the organs will permit, but that size 
^' fixes a limit which education cannot surpass. Dennis, we may 
" presume, received some improvement from education ; but it did 
^' not render him equal to Pope, much less to Shakspeare or 
*' Milton : therefore, if we take two individuals whose brains are 
" equally healthy, but whose organs differ in size, and educate them 
" alike, the advantages in power and attainment will be greatest in 
'' the direct ratio of the size in favour of the largest brain. Thus, 
'* the objection ends in this, — that, if we compare brains in oppo- 
*^' site conditions, we may be led into error — which is granted ; but 
'' this is not in opposition to the doctrine, that, cceieris paribus, 
'^ size determines power. Finally, extreme deficiency in size pro- 
'^ duces incapacity for education, as in idiots ; while extreme deve- 
^' lopment, if healthy, as in Shakspeare, Burns, Mozart, anti- 
" cipates its effects, in so far that the individuals educate them- 
*^ selves. 

'' In saying, then, that, co^teris paribus, size is a measure of 
" power. Phrenologists demand no concessions which are not made 
" to physiologists in general ; among whom, in this instance, they 
*' rank themselves." 

The next objection is, that " A diseased state of the 

'^ organ always makes its operations more vigorous and energetic ; 
" and no instance is mentioned in which the occasional obscuration 
'^ of any faculty is referred to such a cause." — P. 305. This asser- 
tion is at utter variance with fact. On pages 3S3 — 4 of 

* Phrenological Transactions, p. 308. 



56 



LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 



the System, a variety of cases are mentioned in which disease 

of the organ was accompanied by obscuration of the faculty. 

''' The imaginary disease," you continue, " has often no other 
" local indication but this increase of mental vigour, and is indeed, in 
" most cases, plainly imagined or assumed merely to account for 
'' that phenomenon. It proves, at all events, that faculties may 
" have a vigour quite incommensurate with the size of their organs 
ff — which is precisely the reverse of what Phrenology teaches. 
^' It proves that the state or quality of the organ, or of something 
" else, quite independent of its size, may determine the state of the 
" faculty, and that size, therefore, is no criterion whatever. If we 
'^ find a man with a very small organ, and a very vigorous manifes- 
*^ tation of its supposed faculty, it is, to be sure, very easy to say, 
^' that this is owing, not to the size, but the condition of the organ ; 
"^ but it is saying what fundamentally contradicts the whole phreno- 
**^ logical doctrine ; and though it introduces another, pretty nearly 
^^ as absurd, it completely puts an end to the former." 

The answer to this objection also is explicitly given in the 

System ; but you pass it over. It is as follows : 

'^ It is proper next to advert to certain conditions which may co- 
'^ exist in the brain with size, and to attend to their eifects. Power 
" in the manifestations, and size in the organ, are, in the general 
^' case, proportionate ; and when differences in size are considerable, 
" no circumstance, consistent with health, will render the manifes- 
^' tations equal in power ; one brain, however, may be more per- 
^' feet in constitution than another, and, in consequence, may act 
^' more vigorously, although not larger in dimensions ; but these 
'^ differences are slight and their effects limited. Size then is not 
■' the only requisite to the manifestation of great mental power ; the 
^' brain must possess also a healthy constitution, and that degree of 
** activity which is the usual accompaniment of health. Now, the 
"' brain, like other parts of the body, may be affected with certain 
" diseases which do not diminish or increase its magnitude, and yet 
" impair its functions ; and, in such cases, great size may be pre- 
" sent, and very imperfect manifestations appear ; or it may be at- 
" tacked with other diseases, such as inflammation, or any of those 
^' particular affections whose nature is unknown, but to which the 
" name of Mania is given in Nosology, and which greatly exalt its 
^' action ; and then very forcible manifestations may proceed from 
'' a brain comparatively small ; but it is no less true, that when a 
'"' larger brain is excited to the same degree by the same causes, the 
"■ manifestations become increased in energy in proportion to the 
*^ increase of size. These cases, therefore, form no valid objection 
'' to Phrenology. The Phrenologist ascertains, by previous inquiry, 
^' that the brain is in a state of health. If it is not, he makes the 
^^ neces ary limitations in drawing his conclusions."*— P. 46, 

* This subject is discussed at greater length in the Phrenological Journal, No 
II. p. 300, 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 57 

You add to your last objection the following recondite com- 
mentary: — " In some cases our author represents the faculty 

" as inordinately excited by disease, in persons who have the organ 
^' of very small dimensions ; in others he is guilty of the double ab- 
*' surdity of leaving it to disease to produce any manifestation of 
^' the faculty, although the organ has all along been unusually 
" large, as in the following admirable illustration of Destructive- 
" ness : — ^ When excited by intoxication, the organ sometimes be- 
^^ ' comes ungovernable ; and hence arises the destruction of glasses, 
^' 'mirrors, chairs, and every frangible object, at the close of many 
" ' a feast. Hence also the temptation, often almost irresistible, ex- 
" ' perienced by many a worthy citizen, when inebriated, to smash 
'' ^ 2i lamp on his progress home. One gentleman assured me, that 
" ' the lamps have appeared to him, when in this state, as it were 
" ' twinkling on his path with a wicked and scornful gleam, and 
" ' that he has frequently lifted his stick to punish their imperti- 
'^ ' nence, when a remnant of reason restrained the meditated blow. 
" ^ In him, Destructiveness is decidedly large ; but, rvhen sober, 
" 'there is not a more excellent person.' — P. I09. 

" Now,'' you say, '' here we have, first of all, a man with a de- 
'' cidedly large organ, who yet, in his sound and natural state, 
^^ gives no manifestation whatever of the connected propensity, in 
" itself a complete falsification of the theory ; but then, when dis- 
" ordered with drink, this naturally quiet person becomes mischiev- 
'' ous ; that is to say, he comes into the state to which drink and 
'' disorder might bring a man with a decidedly^m^Z/ organ."- — P. 306. 

This objection also is already answered in the System. It 

is there said, that " In no instance is it a matter of indiffer- 

" ence to the talents and dispositions of the individual, whether any 
" particular organ be large or small. If it be large, although its 
" abuses may be prevented by restraint and direction imposed by 
" the other faculties, still its presence will operate on the mind. If, 
'' for instance, large Combativeness and Destructiveness are combin- 
" ed with a large development of the moral and intellectual organs, 
" the whole life may be passed without the occurrence of any out- 
" rage ; and it may be asked, what effect, in this case, do the former 
'* organs produce ? We shall find the answer, by supposing all the 
" other organs to remain large, while those are diminished in size, 
*' and tracing the effects of this change; — the result would be an 
" undue preponderance of moral and intellectual qualities degene- 
" rating into effeminacy. Large Combativeness and Destructiveness 
'' would add the elements of repulsion and aggression to such an ex- 
'' tent, as to permit the manifestation of manly enterprise and cour- 
" age. Hence, in the case supposed, these organs would be duly 
" performing their functions when the superficial observer would 
" imagine them to be entirely superfluous." — P. 450. On these 

principles it did not require intoxication to produce the first 



58 LETTEK FROM GEORGE COMBE 

manifestation of Destructiveness in the individual alluded to; 

and it is not true, in fact, that " drink and disorder" would 

bring a man with a small organ of Destructiveness into the 

state of breaking lamps. 

On p. 307 you say^ '^ A third and separate refutation" (alas, 
that so many refutations should be necessary !) ^'^ is suggested by 
" another concession, or necessary distinction, of its supporters. 
" There is a difference, they have been obliged to adrait, be- 
'' tween the Activity and the Power of their faculties and pro- 
^' pensities ; and size is a measure of power only, activity not 
*' manifesting itself by any peculiarity of outward configuration." 
In the System, it is said, that " activity means the rapidity with 
'^ which the faculties may be manifested. The largest organs 
^^ in each head have the greatest and the smallest the least tend- 
" ency to natural activity." — P. 49. You omit this statement 
entirely, and proceed with the question, '^ Is there in reality 
^^ any distinction between what is here called power and what is 
" called activity, as applied to the 36 phrenological faculties .f*" 
You dedicate two pages to the task of proving, ^' that we can 
'^ have no other idea of the power of any faculty, than one 
^^ which answers exactly to Mr Combe's definition of its activity." 

You, no doubt, quote the definition of activity ; but you omit 

the most important and practical illustrations of the difference 

between it and power, which, if you had inserted, would have 

served as a sufficient refutation of all your objections on this 

head. In the System it is stated, that " The doctrine, that 

" power is a characteristic of the mind, distinguishable at once 
^' from mere intellectual acumen, and also from activity, is one of 
" great practical importance ; and it explains a variety of pheno- 
'^^ mena of which we previously possessed no theory. In society 
'^ we meet with persons whose whole manner is little, whom we 
'^^ instinctively feel to be unfit for any great enterprise or arduous 
" duty, and who are, nevertheless, distinguished for amiable feel- 
" ing and good sense. This springs from a small brain, but favour- 
'• ably proportioned in its parts. Other individuals again, with 
" far less polish, inferior information, and fewer amiable quali- 
'^ ties, impress us with a sentiment of their power, force, energy, 
«^ or greatness ; we instinctively feel that they have weight, and 
'^ that, if acting against us, they would prove formidable oppo- 
" nents. This arises from great size. Buonaparte, who had 
" an admirable tact in judging of human nature, distinguishes 
'^ between mere cleverness and force of character, and almost 
" always prefers the latter. In his Memoirs, he speaks of some 
" of his generals as possessing talents, intellect, book-learning, 
"■ but as still being nobody, as wanting that weight and compre- 
" hensiveness which fit a man for great enterprises ; while he 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 59 

" adverts to others as possessing limited intellect and little judg- 
'^ ment, but prodigious force of character ; and characterizes 
" them as admirably adapted by this qualification to lead soldiers 
'' through peril and difficulty, provided they be put on the right 
" path by minds superior to their own. Murat was such a 
" man ; and Buonaparte appears, on the whole, to have liked 
" such officers, for they did not trouble him with thinking for 
" themselves, while they possessed energy adequate to the exe- 
" cution of his most gigantic designs." — System of Phrenology, 
p. 435. 

*' Activity in the organs, on the other hand, gives liveliness, 
" quickness, and rapidity ; and is a more frequent concomitant 
" of a moderate- si zed brain than of a large one. Dr Spurz- 
^^ HEIM thinks that long fibres contribute to activity. Mode- 
" rate size of the brain, with favourable combination, and much 
" activity, will constitute what is commonly understood by a 
" clever man in ordinary life ; such an individual will form ideas 
^' rapidly, do a great deal of work, show tact and discrimination, 
" and prove himself really a valuable and useful member of so- 
" ciety ; but then he must not be overloaded with difficulties, 
" or encumbered with obstacles, nor must the field in which he 
'•' is called on to labour be too extensive." — Id. p. 439. 

" When power and activity unite in an individual, they consti- 
" tute the perfection of genius. This I conceive to have been 
" the case in Homer and in Shakespeare. Vivacious buoy- 
'^ ancy, ease, and fertility, arising from activitj?^, joined with 
" depth, strength, comprehensiveness, and masculine energy of 
" mind, the result of great size, place these authors above all 
^'^ others whom the world has ever seen." — Id. p. 440. 

It is almost superfluous to add to these illustrations ; but 

as you cite instances of particular faculties, and ask what is 

the distinction between power and activity in them, it may be 

proper briefly to answer some of your inquiries. Your words 

are, " When we say, for example, that a man has Destruc- 

'^ tiveness uncommonly powerful, what do we mean but that he 
" is unusually ready to injure and destroy ? All men have some- 
" thing, it seems, of this amiable propensity; and the only dif- 
" ference is, that those who have it least are the slowest to give 
" way to it, and those who have it most, the quickest. The 
" whole difference, therefore, is in what is here called its activity:' 

Is it true, then, that this is the only difference ? When we 

see represented on the stage the character of an ill-natured 

old woman, whose whole existence is little else than a 

series of manifestations of Destructiveness, can any thing be 

more quicJc, and, at the same time, more ludicrously ^^^??f, 

than the flashes of ill-nature which are then exhibited ? It 



60 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

isy indeed, the contrast between these quahties that forms 
the charm of the representation. Take, again, the example 
of a Meg Merrilees, uttering the most dreadful imprecations 
of a tremendous Destructiveness, do we not feel in this cha- 
racter an overwhelming power of passion altogether different 
from the activity of the other ? We laugh at the one and 
tremble before the other ; and this difference of feeling in the 
spectator does not arise, as you maintain, " merely from dif- 
" ference in the muscles of the hand or arm" of the actors, 
for there is no question of physical violence in either case, — 
but solely from difference in their mental energies. So com- 
pletely is this the truth, and so distinct are the qualities of 
power and activity, that I would peril the decision of this 
point, on the fact, that the ablest representatives of the former 
set of characters on all the stages of Europe have smaller 
brains than tlie ablest representatives of the second class ; 
and that they cannot with success interchange ; the small 
brain cannot rise to the deep pathos of the large one, and the 
large brain cannot divest itself of its accompanying mental 
intensity, the very absence of which constitutes the peculiar 
aptitude of the small brain for the parts which it represents. 
You ask, what constitutes a great endowment of Wit, 
Language, Imitation, Locality, and Individuality^ but a 
" rapid," " copious,'' and " easy" manifestation of these 
powers ? Did you ever meet with " a chattering creature" 
in society "^ If you have had this misfortune, you must have 
found, by painful experience, that nothing could exceed the 
" rapidity," " copiousness," and «' ease" of his discourse ; 
but that nothing could fall farther short of the energy and 
intensity of a Shakspeare. As you enjoy the " admiration 
" of many ladies and dress-makers," you, of course, have 
been no stranger at musical entertainments : did you ever 
observe, then, that some ladies send forth from the piano- 
forte volumes of sound so rich in melody and intensely deep 
in power, that they melt the very soul of the listener ; while 
there are other performers perfect in execution, correct in time, 
and strict observers of every rule of art, whose music is still 



TO FRANCIS JEFFEEY, ESQ. 61 

meagre and destitute of every quality fitted to excite and che- 
rish emotion ; a large organ of Tune and large brain are essen- 
tial to the first, and these will be found smaller in the latter. 

You amuse yourself and your readers with picturing " a 
" mighty colourist bringing his tardy energies to act in a 
" flower-garden, and labouring towards tremendous mani- 
" festations of his faculty," &c. If you would know where 
such manifestations are in reality to be found, I would refer 
you to the works of that mighty colourist Titian, whose 
Venuses and Danaes are made by the power of colour to 
start from the canvass with all the energy of life, — to the 
gorgeous displays of colouring in the paintings of Rubens, 
who, with all the palpable defects of his taste in regard to 
form, his squab Cupids and Dutch-built Faiths and Charities, 
strikes the critic dumb with admiration by the force of co- 
lour alone. Above all, to the marvellous effects produced 
by mere colour in the chiaro-scuro of Rembrandt, where, by 
throwing an excess of brilliancy on one part of the picture, 
while the other is immersed in the deepest shade, he gives 
the appearance as of the sparkling of gems, or the radiation 
of light itself. I would refer you, lastly, to the mild rich 
glow in the colouring of Claude, where trees, temples, and 
waters, sleeping under the rays of his setting suns, are only 
exceeded in beauty by the pencil of that great and inimit- 
able colourist — Nature. Allow me farther to observe, that, 
whether you are able to feel it or no, there is a ^oze;^r of 
conception and imagination in respect to colour, in the in- 
stances here mentioned, altogether beyond the reach of the 
most active little sorter of ribbands, male or female, that ever 
bustled behind or on the outside of a counter. A boarding- 
school Miss, when choosing the threads for her sampler, or 
papers for a fillagree tea-caddy, may have as qtiich a percep- 
tion of the difference of shades, and exercise her organ of 
colour as actively as Titian or Rubens could for the soul of 
them ; but what a difference in the effect produced, i. e, in 
the power of manifestation ! 

'^ There is/' you say^ " st. fourth refutation, and that totally in- 



G8 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

" dependent of admissions^ to be derived from the changes that 
" are so familiarly observed to take place in the characters and 
" propensities of men in the course of their lives, while the ele- 
'^ vations on their skulls remain as they were from the begin- 
'^ ning." — P. 311. " Is there any thing so common, for instance, 
" as to see a young spendthrift turned into an old miser ? A man 
" who was scandalously prodigal from 20 to 40, becoming ex- 
" travagantly avaricious from 50 to 80 ?" — " Are there not 
" many amorous youths who degenerate into absolute woman- 
'' haters in their middle age?" — P. 312. I have occasionally heard 

of such cases, but never having seen any, I can neither ad- 
mit, nor deny, nor explain them from practical observation ; 
but, 9dly, they are in direct opposition to your own state- 
ment on p. 302, — " That all the world knows, and the 

^' Phrenologists themselves admit, that the vigour of any faculty 
*^' may be improved by exercise and education, and the strength 
" of any propensity hy habitual indulgence." — No doubt certain 

modifications of character do sometimes take place in the 
course of the lives of individuals ; but these are totally dis- 
tinct from those here cited from your pages. In the System 
of Phrenology, under the title of " Combinations in Activi- 
" ty,"" p. 454, the case is supposed of " two individuals, in 
" each of whom all the organs are developed in an average 
" degree r and it is explained, that if the one be educated 
in moral and intellectual pursuits, this training will occasion 
the predominance of the higher faculties in activity in him ; 
while, if the other be exposed to the temptations of vice, 
aided by ignorance, the lower faculties will in him become 
most active. It is added, " the principle now under discus- 
" sion is not inconsistent with the influence of size ; because it 
'^ is only in individuals in whom the organs are nearly on an 
"^equality in point of size, that so great effects can he produced by 
" combinations in activity. In such cases, the Phrenologist, in 
" estimating the effects of size, always inquires into the educa- 
^' tion bestowed." — " If an individual is very deficient in the 
" higher organs, he will remain vulgar in consequence of this 
" defect, although born and educated in the best society, and in 
" spite of every effort to communicate refinement by training ; 
'^ while, on the other hand, if a very favourable development 
^' of the organs of the higher sentiments and intellect is possess- 
'^ ed, the individual, in whatever rank he moves, will have the 
" stamp of nature's nobility.'' — P. 455. 

If we suppose the case of a, young man in whom all the 



TO FRANCIS JEFFRKYj ESQ. 63 

organs exist in nearly equal relative proportions, and who in 
his youth was exposed to the solicitations of profligate asso- 
ciates, but in his maturer years has had the good fortune to 
change his external circumstances, and come within the habi- 
tual influence of religious, moral, and intellectual society, it 
is quite obvious, that, without the least dereliction of phreno- 
logical principle, he may, in the latter condition, exhibit a 
great improvement of character ; but this is totally different 
from a prodigal becoming a miser, or an amorous youth a 
woman-hater. And, besides, the phrenological statement must 
never be overlooked, that it is only where the organs are 
pretty much in equilibrio that such modifications, as are here 
admitted, actually occur ; because this accords precisely with 
the fact in nature, that it is only some profligates who are re- 
claimable, while others set at defiance all the efforts of piety 
and philanthropy to accomplish their reformation. If there 
is not some natural obstacle to a change of character, why 
do we not all change for the better ? Why do you, for ex- 
ample, not assume the profundity of Bacon, the elevation of 
Milton, and the fertility of Shakspeare ? Why has any 
parent a wayward child, whose pride, selfishness, or cunning, 
he cannot subdue ? Phrenology answers, because, in the one 
case, we cannot confer on ourselves such large organs of in- 
tellect as those illustrious men possessed ; and, in the other, 
cannot eradicate from the brains of children large organs 
of Self-esteem and Secretiveness. The changes of charac- 
ter that Phrenology recognises are similar to those which the 
lion undergoes in a cage ; the stimulus of hunger is sedu- 
lously averted, while bars and bolts are added to restrain 
his ferocity, and a degree of tameness is thus produced ; but 
he is still in nature a lion. In like manner, by withdraw- 
ing excitement to the propensities, and adding the restraints 
of moral and intellectual influence, a man, who, in different 
circumstances, was vicious, may be rendered to some extent 
moral ; but his nature is not changed. If we restore the 
temptations, and withdraw the restraints, he will return, like 



64 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

a SOW that is washed, to wallowing in the mire. This subject 
is ably discussed in an essay by Mr Lyon, published in 
the Christian Instructor for December, 1823, and in another 
paper in the Phrenological Journal, vol. I. p. 555. 

Having now answered at considerable length those of your 
objections which go to the principles of Phrenology, I shall 
very briefly advert to such of them as relate more immediately 
to details. 

You say, " the last and most effectual, or at least most tangi- 

'^ ble refutation is deduced from the actual want of any thing- like 
" distinct organs in the brain^" (p. 311,) and again, '^ In the only or- 
^ gans of which we know any thing there is no such wondrous uni- 
•' formity. The eye is a machine of a very different structure from 
'^ the ear — the olfactory apparatus radically distinct from the gus- 
^' tatory ; it would be strange, therefore, if we venerated the Deity, 
^' and were impelled to break lamps, by the state of two cones of the 
^' same substance lying under one bone ! But there are no such 
^ cones, nor any traces of the 36 organs, except the elevations at 
' the surface."— -P. 313. Note. 

Here, however, in this " your last, most effectual, and 
most tangible refutation," you are equally wrong as in your 
FOUR preceding refutations. Allow me to call to your recol- 
lection what you have stated on page 258, viz. that " Ana- 

" tomy and experiment show farther, that sensibility of these or- 
'^ gans" (of sight, hearing, and touch,) '^ depends on the 7ierves 
" which belong to them — on the optic and auditory nerves, for ex- 
'^ ample, as to seeing and hearing, or on the nerves of touch for 
" many other sensations ;" and again, in the same page, that " the 
" nerves belonging to each of these senses seem to form its only ma- 
'^ terial organ," and that " it is upon their peculiar structure or 
" action that our sensations depend." Be it observed too, that the 

emphatic italics in these sentences are your own, and show 

your anxiety to have the fact mentioned well understood. 

Now if the " wondrous uniformity"" of which you complain 

in the cerebral organs has really nothing analogous in any of our 

other organs, in all of which you think there is a distinctness 

of structure at once indicative of a distinctness of function, I 

would ask you, simply, to explain, how it has happened that 

for so many hundred years anatomists and physiologists 

should have been at variance in regard to the three nerves of 

7 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 65 

the tongue, and how they could not decide among themselves 
which was really the nerve of taste, which of motion, and 
which of touch ? taste, motion, and touch being surely, at 
least, as distinct in their nature as the phrenological faculties 
of Veneration and Destructiveness, which you are surprised 
at finding acting through the medium of organs formed of 
the same substance. — When you tell us that the five senses 
depend for their sensibility on nerves, which are their " onl^ 
material organs,"" did you, " not being learned in anato- 
my,'' imagine that each of these nerves was formed of such a 
different and dissimilar substance, that, by looMng at them, 
you could point out the particular sense for which each was 
destined ? If you did so, you are either in a mistake as to 
what is possible, or more gifted than ordinary observers. 
Sensation and motion again are nearly as dissimilar in their 
nature as any two of the phrenological faculties, and yet so 
far are these from being connected with organs more dissimi- 
lar in substance or appearance than those of the brain, that 
you yourself, in a note to the page already quoted, inform 
your readers that only now Mr Charles Bell, aided by Ma- 
gendie and Flourens, has made it highly probable that " the 
'* nerves which minister to sensation are different from those 
" which produce voluntary motion ^ and if you had been 
skilled in anatomy you would have been able to give precise- 
ly the same good reason for this being not only a very mo- 
dern, but as yet not an universally-received discovery, as may 
be given for the lateness of the discovery of the true functions 
of the brain. You complain that the cones in the brain, 
though executing different functions, are not divided by vi- 
sible partitions, or made of different kinds of substance. 
When you stated this as an objection, did you know that the 
nerves of sensation and motion are composed of similar sub- 
stances not separated by any visible partitions, but running 
undistinguishably blended in one common sheath ? 

It may be mentioned also, that Dr Barclay started objections 

E 



66 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

precisely similar several years ago, in his work on Life and 

Organization, and that they are answered by Dr A. Combe 

in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society, p. 397. 

You say that you have been assured by persons learned in 

anatomy, that all that is true in Drs Gall and Spurzheim's 

account of the brain " had been previously established by 

Reil and others ;" and, in a note at the end of your review, 

you tell us that Dr Gordon, in " a masterly work," and an 

" admirable production, has clearly demonstrated, Ist, that the phre^ 
^' Dological doctors have no sort of claim to originality, as to the far 
"^ greater part of the anatomical facts they have held out as their 
'' discoveries ; and, 2dj that all that is really original in their ana- 
'' tomy is quite unsound atid erroneous, and founded either on most 
" idle conjectures, or on a mere trick in the manner of operation, 
" scarcely reconcileable with the dignity of scientific investigation." 

As you seem never to have thought it necessary to read Dr 
Spurzheim''s answer to that " admirable production," the opi- 
nions of which you thus implicitly adopt, you will no doubt 
be surprised to learn that Drs Gall and Spurzheim have been 
infinitely more particular than Dr Gordon himself, in tracing 
the history of the anatomy of the brain, and in giving to each 
discoverer the merit really due to him ; and that they them- 
selves had quoted the very authors, and in several instances 
the very passages of those authors, which Dr Gordon long 
afterwards adduced to show their bad faith. When you re- 
peat an assertion that first appeared in your own Review, No 
49, and which has been refuted again and again, that " all 
that is true in their"" (Drs G. and S.'s) " account of the brain 
" had been previously estabhshed by Reil and others," it is 
obvious that you have not considered it necessary to read Dr 
Spurzheim''s answer to Dr Gordon. It is there stated at p. 
51, that at Halle, in the year 1805, " Professors Reil and 

'^ Loder, and numerous gentlemen of the profession, honoured us 
'^ with their presence at the public lectures and demonstrations. With 
" Loder we repeated several times the anatomical demonstrations, 
" and once we dissected with Reil a brain quietly in his own room. 
'^ He was so much pleased with our demonstrations, that he gave to 
" Dr Gall some drawings with which he was formerly occupied, de 
" siructura nervorum et cerebeUi." " Tliwt;," continues Dr S., " I 



TO FRANCIS JEFFHEY. ESQ. 



67 



*' beg to observe, that in the summer of 1805, we demonstrated to 
" lleil the same leading- points in the anatomy of the brain which 
*' we still maintain ;" and it was after this (in 1809) that Reil pub- 
lished views essentially the same as those demonstrated by 
Gall and Spurzheim. Farther, in the Phrenological Journal, 
vol. I. p. 73, you will find evidence that Reil himself d\d not 
hesitate to declare, '' that he had obtained more informa- 

" tion from the dissection of the brain performed by Gall, than he 
" had believed it possible for a man to discover in his whole life- 
" time." In this testimony to the anatomical merits of the '' phre- 
" nological doctors" Loder heartily concurs. If all that is really 

original in their anatomy is, as you assert, unsound, erro- 
neous, and founded only on idle conjecture and mere trick, 
is it not somewhat astonishing that Reil, to whom you gra- 
tuitously ascribe the merits of the discoveries, should himself 
speak of them in such terms .'' and further, that so competent 
a judge as Cuvier should, in giving a summary of the ana- 
tomy of the brain in 1822, use the following words: — '' On 

" sait aujour d'hui et surtout par les dernieres recherches de M. M. 
" Gall et Spurzheim, que la movelle epiniere, S^c." and goes on to 

describe the structure of the brain precisely as explained 
hy the phrenological doctors, to whom alone Cuvier here re- 
fers. (Vide Revue Encyclopedique, November, 1822, p. 
237.) If what you allege is really correct, is it not equally 
surprising that M. J. Cloquet, a distinguished anatomist of 
Paris, in a much-admired, very expensive, and splendid folio 
work, in 40 Nos. with lithographic plates, entitled " Anatomie 
de THomme,"" now in the course of publication, has copied 
every one of the plates of the human brain contained in Drs 
Gall and SpurzheinCs great work ? He has done this with 
very slight acknowledgments of gratitude to their authors 
indeed ; but the simple fact of his esteeming them as the 
most accurate, and engraving them in such a work, shows the 
degree of credit to which your Review, and '« the admirable 
production"' of your authority, Dr Gordon, are entitled, when 
you " venture to affirm" (in No 49 of the Review, p. 2Q5,) 
" that there is not one of these figures which accords with nature ;" 



68 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

that the representations in plates VI. and XI. '' are particularly 
" inaccurate ;" that others " do not in the least degree approach to 
*' accuracy ;" and on p. 267^ that in several plates " the omissions 
'^ are great, and in a considerable number the errors extravagant/' 

Is it not surprising, that in a place like Paris, where, from 
the abundance of subjects, every one can so easily verify the 
anatomical statements of Gall and Spurzheim, their descrip- 
tions should now be those adopted by the established profess- 
ors and teachers of the science ? I have already cited Cu- 
vier and Cloquet, and I may safely add, that the late lament- 
ed Beclard, professor of anatomy at the Faculty of Medi- 
cine, whose genius is incontestable, and whose reputation is al- 
ready European, although he was cut off in his prime, de- 
scribes the structure in terms scarcely different from those of 
the phrenological doctors themselves.* Besides, in London, 
in 1826, Dr Spurzheim was entreated by the medical students 
to teach them the anatomy of the brain, and they raised a 
subscription to recompense him for doing so. These statements 
may seem tedious and unnecessary, but truth required them 
to be brought forward to dissipate the deception which you, 
unintentionally and in ignorance, endeavour to practise on 
those who pin their faith to your dicta, on the erroneous sup- 
position that you are acquainted with the subject on which 
you are writing. Can you peruse the testimonies now ad- 
duced, and still " venture to affirm^' that your own conduct 
is, in this instance, " reconcileable with the dignity of scien- 
'' tific investigation ?" 

On p. 317, you quote the case of a Welshman in St Tho- 
mas'*s Hospital, " who had received a considerable injury of 
" the head, but from which he ultimately recovered, and 
'' who, when he became convalescent^ spoke a language which 
" no one about him could comprehend." It turned out 
that he had recovered the use of the Welsh language which 
he had learned in his youth, but, owing to long disuse, had 

* Beclard's Additions to Bichat, p. 38. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 69 

subsequently forgotten. After citing the case, you proceed : 

*' The phenomenon is explained by supposing that a part of the 
" organ of Language was injured, and that the effects of this 
" injury were, 1*^, to destroy for the time, that part of the ma- 
" chinery which served for the recollection of English words, 
" and, 2d, to restore to a serviceable state, that part which had 
" been originally used for recollecting Welsh ones, but had long 
^' been so much rusted and decayed as to be quite unfit for ser- 
" vice. These are not metaphors employed to assist our concep- 
" tion of an obscure fact, or to give a sort of coherence to a strange 
" statement, they are alleged by the phrenologists as se- 
" rious and literal truths, affording a plain and satisfactory eX' 
" planation of a very extraordinary occurrence." Now, would 

any mortal believe that every word of these explanations and 
statements is a pure fiction of your own, gratuitously put 
into the mouths of the Phrenologists, apparently for no pur- 
pose but to aiford scope for ridicule. Not only are there 
no such assertions pr expositions in my work, but there 
is nothing approaching to them. After quoting from an 
opponent of Phrenology the case of the Welshman, the only 
remark made upon it by me is, " Such a fact as this is to- 

" tally inexplicable on any principle, except that of the existence of 
" organs by which the faculties are manifested ; for it could not be 
'^ the mind itself that was affected, and its faculties impaired by the 
" fever or which recovered long-lost knowledge by the influence of 
" this disease." — System qf Phrenology, p. Si 5. 

On page 318 of the Review, it is said, " We have left room 
*' enough, we dare say, for cavil and misrepresentation on the 
" part of those who think those the best weapons of controver- 
'' sy ; it is not, however, to them that we address ourselves, 
«* and we care nothing at all for their hostility.'" There are no 
limits certainly to the abuse of words ; but if your Review is 
deliberately meant to be exhibited by you as a specimen of 
what you mean by candour and scrupulosity, no doubt this 
answer to it may be viewed as replete with " cavil and mis- 
" representation.'''' 

You attempt another refutation of Phrenology, by affirm- 
ing, that a man may not only be well hanged on all his or- 
gans, but that he may be deprived of the greater number of 
them altogether, without injury to any mental faculty. Instead 



70 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

of wasting time in answering at length, a proposition worthy 
indeed of the author of the discovery, that insects perform 
all their functions as well without, as with heads, I shall merely 
state, that the principle of a plurality of organs, as applied 
to the explanation of the phenomena attendant on partial in- 
juries of the brain, has been recognized by the best profes- 
sional authorities, as the most satisfactory and consistent that 
has ever been propounded. In the Medico-Chirurgical Re- 
view for October, 1826, the following passage occurs :— 

" The last of these questions" (the objection arising from in- 
juries of the brain) " is investigated in an elaborate paper fur- 
" nished to the "^ System," by Dr A. Combe, which succeeds 
^^ completely in removing the objection. His reasons seem to 
'^ us unanswerable, and unfold views which the physician can 
'' apply to the best purposes. The Essay is altogether satisfac- 
'' tory."— P. 466. 

On page 296, you say, '' If it were really true, that cer- 

'' tain very visible and well-defined bumps on the skull were the 
'' necessary organs of all our faculties and propensities, — just as our 
'^ eyes are of sight and our ears of hearing, — it is, in the first place, 
'' inconceivable, that the discovery should have remained to be made 
'*" in the beginning of the 19th century." 

The same profound objection goes to show, that the dis- 
covery of the revolution of the globe could not be true, be- 
cause it was not made by Copernicus till 1510, nor de- 
fended by Galileo till 1608; that Harvey's discovery of 
the circulation of the blood must be a fable, because mankind 
continued ignorant of it till 1619; and that gas-light must 
be a perfect nonentity, because it was unknown till our own 
day ! In the introduction to the " System"" it is explained 
how the discovery was not made sooner ; Dissection does not 
reveal the Jlifict mis of any organ, and Consciousness does not 
intimate even the existence of organs of the mental faculties ; 
nevertheless, anatomists prior to Dr Gall studied the brain 
chiefly by dissection, and metaphysicians studied the mind by 
reflection on their own consciousness ; while he adopted a 
method entirely new, that of comparing the power of mani- 
festing the various faculties with the size of particular parts 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 71 

of the brain. It is, therefore, not strange, that he should 
arrive at results which the imperfections of their methods ren- 
dered it impossible or them to reach. 

You proceed : — " In the second place, it is still more incon- 
" ceivable, that, after the discovery vras made, there should be any 
" body who could pretend to doubt of its reality. Tlie means of 
'' yerifying it, one would think, must have been such as not to leave a 
'' pretext for the slig^htest hesitation ; and the fact that, after twenty 
" years preaching: i n its favour, it is far more generally rejected than 
'^ believed, might seem to afford pretty conclusive evidence ag-ainst 
" the possibility of its truth."— P. 296. 

In answer, I beg to refer you to Mr Locke's observations, 
cited on p. 9 of this Letter, and to the following extract from 
Professor Playfair's " Dissertation," prefixed to the Sup- 
plement of the Encyclopaedia Britannica : — 

^' It must not be supposed," says he, '' that so great a revo- 
" lution in science, as that which was made by the new analysis, 
'^ (by Newton,) could be brought about entirely without oppo- 
'' sition, as in every society there are some who think them- 
^'^ selves interested to maintain things in the condition wherein 
'' they have found them. The considerations are indeed suffi- 
" ciently obvious, which, in the moral and political world, tend 
'' to produce this effect, and to give a stability to human insti- 
^' tutions often so little proportionate to their real value, or to 
" their general utility. Even in matters purely intellectual, 
" and in which the abstract truths of arithmetic and geometry 
'' seem alone concerned, the prejudices ^ the selfishness, or the va-^ 
*^ nity of those who pursue them, not unfrequently combine to 
'^ resist improvement, and qfte^i engage no inconsiderable degree of 
" talent in drawing bach, instead of pushing forward, the machine 
'^ of science. The introduction of methods entirely new must often 
'' change the relative place of the men engaged in scientific pursuits, 
^' and must oblige 7nany, after descending from the stations they 
"formerly occupied, to take a lower position in the scale of intel^ 
" lectual improvement. The enmity of such men, if they be not 
'' animated by a spirit of real candour and the love of truth, is 
" likely to be directed against methods by which their vanity 
^^ is mortified and their importance lessened." — Dissertation y 
part 2d, p. 27- 

Mr Playfair, again, speaking of the discoveries of Newton 
in reo-ard to the composition of light, says, " But all were 
'' not equally candid with the Dutch philosopher, [Huygens], 
" and though the discovery now communicated had every 
'' thing to recommend it which can arise from what is great, new. 



72 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

^' and singular, though it was not a theory or system of opinio7is, 
" but the generalization of facts made known by experiments, and 
" though it was brought forward in a most simple and unpre- 
'^ tending form, a host of enemies appeared, each eager to obtain 
*' the unfortunate jjre^eminence of being the first to attack conclu- 
" sions which the unanimous voice of posterity was to conjirm." — 
(P. 6Q.) " Among them, one of the first was Father Pardies, 
'^ who wrote against the experiments, and what he was pleased to 
" call the Hypothesis of Newton. A satisfactory and calm re- 
" ply convinced him of his mistake, which he had the candour 
" very readily to acknowledge. A countryman of his, Mariotte, 
'^ was more difficult to be reconciled, and though very convert 
*^ sant with experiment, appears never to have succeeded in repeat- 
'' ing the experiments of Newton" — lb. p. 57- 

Here Mr Playfair's arm is raised not only to avenge the 
illustrious dead, but to protect from insult discoverers of 
every age. It is impossible to arrest the blow, even although 
it is you, his friend, who have thrust your head into the line 
of its descent. 

On pages 295 and 296, you make a variety of allegations 
hostile to Phrenology, and say, that the Phrenologists " know 
well enough that the great body of the public concurs^' with 
you ; — ^you should have added, " and the whole empire of 
" China !" — If I have been successful in showing, that it is im- 
possible to know any thing at all of the matter, except by 
practising observations, which you, and the great body of the 
public, misled by you, have never done, it follows that the 
good people of China are in every respect as competent wit- 
nesses against the truth of Phrenology as you and your ad- 
herents ; and if numbers are to decide the question, they are 
not to be despised. You know well enough, that that por- 
tion of the public who have eocamined the evidence are to a man 
against you ; and according to all rules of probation hither- 
to acted upon, the testimony of ten men informed on a sub- 
ject outweighs that of a countless multitude whose ignorance 
is their only qualification. If I am not greatly deceived, you 
have in the present article over-estimated the extent of public 
ignorance regarding Phrenology, and relied on it a little more 
than may be advantageous to your philosophical reputation. 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 73 

On p. 293, you state, that the whole question is, " whether 

" it be really trite^ that certain bumps on the head are the or- 

" gans of certain primitive, distinct, and universal faculties," 

you admit that " we cannot take upon ourselves to say that 

** the facts are absolutely false," but excuse yourself, in the 

following words, for not entering on a scrutiny of this most 

important of all the points in the discussion. " Suppose," you 

say, " that we were merely to allege that, so far as our observation 
" went, the facts (of the Phrenologists) seemed all to be imaginary— 
'^ that it was a matter of notoriety, that men with large heads were 
" not generally of superior endowments, nor those with small, defi- 
'' cient in understanding — that in the circle of our acquaintance 
" there were many kind mothers without any protuberance on the 
'' lower part of their skulls, many men of wit with no triangular 
" prominences beyond the temples, and many eloquent and loqua- 
" cious persons, of both sexes, with no unusual projection of the 
" eyes — that, in fact, we had never happened to meet with any one 
'* individual in whom a marked peculiarity of character or disposi- 
" tion was accompanied by any of their external indications, and 
" that we daily saw remarkable enough bumps on the heads of very 
*" ordinary people — that most of those with whom we conversed had 
" made the same observations, and concurred in the same Results," &c. 

" They would call on us to name our instances, and would 
" cavil at them when they were named ,• or, because we declin- 
*' ed submitting the heads of respectable ladies and gentlemen 
'^ to an impertinent palpation, and their characters, temper, 
'' and manners, to a still more impertinent discussion, — because 
*' we did not choose to offend many worthy people, by pointing 
*' them out as the ownners of bumps, without the corresponding 
" faculties, — or to engage in a quarterly wrangle about the 
*' Ideality of Dr Chalmers, or the Adhesiveness of Mrs M'Kin- 
'* non, they would complain, that we used allegations which 
*' we refused to verify, and contend, that nothing but a fair 
" scrutiny was wanting to their success." — P. 296. 

No, indeed, the Phrenologists would make no such com- 
plaints. In regard to your facts, they would simply remind 
you, that you entered upon the observation of them avowed- 
ly with the conviction, " first, that there is not the least rea^ 

*' son to suppose that ani/ of our faculties, but those which con- 
«' nect us with external objects, or direct the movements of our 
" bodies, act by material organs at all, and that the phre- 
" nological organs have no analogy whatever with those of the ex- 
" iernal senses ; second, that it is quite plain, that there neither 



74 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

*' are, nor can he, any such primitive and original faculties as the 
" greater part of those to which such organs are assigned." — 

P. 294. They would remark, farther, that the consequences 
of these impressions would be, first, that you would not, 
in all probability, take the trouble to become acquainted 
accurately, with the form and position of organs which you 
had thus settled to be mere fictions of imagination ; and, 
secondly, that you v/ould be as little likely to study, so as 
to comprehend distinctly, the functions ascribed to faculties 
which you had already dismissed, as what neither existed nor 
could exist ; and they would state, with all deference, that 
a person thus prepossessed was not in the best condition for 
making impartial observations, and would not be over-dis- 
posed to recognize concomitances of organic development with 
mental manifestations, even although such should actually 
present themselves. As proofs of the truth of these infer- 
ences, they would refer, first, to your ignorance of the situation 
of the organs manifested, in your placing '' Colour in the 
•' forehead, and Tune on the eyebrow, over the middle of 
" the eye^'' p. 259, and describing Concentrativeness on one 
page, (274,) " as having a goodly organ in the hack part of 
" the head, just above Love of Children and below Self-es- 
*' teem ;" and on another page, (274,) as having '' two dis- 
<' tinct organs oian angular shape on the sides of the cranium;" 
secondly, to your blunders concerning the faculties, which are 
nearly as numerous as your notices of them ; and, thirdly, to 
the surprising circumstance, that you " never happened to 
" meet with any one individual in whom a marked peculi- 
" arity of character or disposition was accompanied by any 
" of their external indications,"" because, unless you had 
been absolutely resolved not to see, you must, according to 
the principle of the calculation of chances, have stumbled, hy 
mere accident, upon, at least, one concomitance, out of any 
considerable number of observations.* 

* The assertion in the text really proves^ either that you have never 
looked, or been unwilling to see. You have frequently met Mr Thomas Moore, 



TO FRANCIS JEFFEEY, ESQ. 75 

As to calling you to " name your instances," and engage 
in a quarterly wrangle about the Ideality " of Dr Chalmers, 
" or the Adhesiveness of Mrs M'Kinnon," the Phrenologists 
would not propose any such offence to your editorial dignity 
and delicacy. If you wished to come to issue on the facts of the 
science, they would invite you to the Phrenological Hall, (and 
this they have done for the last four years, and by opening it to 
public inspection,) they would show you authenticated casts of 
the skulls of King Robert Bruce, Raphael, La Fontaine, Bel- 
lingham, Sheridan, &c. ; masks, taken from nature, of Hen- 
ri Quatre, Swift, Burke, Pitt, Fox, Sec ; masks from au- 
thenticated busts of Voltaire, Franklin, he. ; actual skulls of 
executed criminals, whose actions were proved before juries; 
and a great variety of skulls of most of the nations of the 
globe, whose manners and characters are matters of philoso- 
phical history ; and they would stand or fall by the accord- 
ance, or non-accordance of the development of brain in these 
instances, with the publicly-acknowledged talents and dispo- 
sitions of the individuals and nations. 

I regret, that, in addition to all the other points of 
your article, which it has been imperative on me to contro- 
vert, I am obliged to call in question, and reject, an indirect 
compliment which you are pleased to bestow upon my work, 
not, as, perhaps, you anticipate, because it is not sufficiently 
flattering to my Self-esteem, but because it is ill-founded 
and unjust. You say^, that Phrenology, in my hands, has 
" assumed, for the first time, an aspect not absolutely 
" ludicrous, by my retrenching many of the ridiculous illus- 
" trations and inconsistent assumptions of its mventors," &c. 

and you are intimately acquainted with his works. The Westminster Re- 
view was led to remark, that in his life of Sheridan there are 2500 similes, 
exclusive of metaphors and regularly-built allegories. This is pretty conclusive 
evidence as to his manifesting the faculty of Comparison, as described in the 
System, p. 339 ; and I venture to state, from observation, that the organ is so 
largely developed in his head as to be discernible at the distance of several 
yards, in the very form assigned to it on the busts : and yet you never saw this 
concomitance ! 



76 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE 

Such an assertion could be made only in utter ignorance of 
the writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, — men whose pro- 
found intellects and extensive information place them in the 
highest rank of philosophical authors. 

This letter, like your review, has turned out rather long 
and desultory ; and I beg leave, in concluding, briefly to 
recapitulate the topics on which it has touched. I have en- 
deavoured then, to shew that Phrenology is more widely ex- 
tended, and deeply rooted in the public estimation, than you 
appear to be aware of; — that your grand proposition, of the 
internal mental faculties not acting by means of organs at 
all, is refuted, by the known effects of opium and wine, and 
also discountenanced by the authority of your own review, of 
Cullen, Gregory, and Magendie; — that your objection to 
the assignment of separate faculties to the mind, is obviated 
by Mr Welsh's metaphysical answer, and absolutely refuted 
by the successive appearance of the mental powers in youth, 
by the phenomena of partial genius, of dreaming, somnam- 
bulism, idiocy, and monomania; — that in your denial of the 
Phrenological faculties, as primitive principles of mind, you 
stand opposed to Reid, Kames, Stewart, Brown, and the 
greatest metaphysicians of Britain, who admit of faculties simi- 
lar to seven-tenths of them ; — that in your attempts to resolve 
several of these faculties into one, as the love of young women, 
of children, &c., into Benevolence, and Hope and Fear into mere 
negations of each other, you refute yourself ; — that your ob- 
jections to Concentrativeness, Individuality, Size, and AVeight, 
are founded on erroneous representations of the Phrenological 
statements and conclusions; — that on Colouring, the Phreno- 
logical theory is consistent in itself, and with nature; while your 
doctrine in the Encyclopaedia, and Jact in the Review, on 
this point, are at variance with each other ; — that your objec- 
tions to Size in the organs, as a measure of power in the case 
of the external senses, are refuted by the authority of Blum- 
enbach, Soemmering, Monro, &c. ; all of whom teach, that 
this rule holds, in regard to the nerves of the senses, con- 



TO FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ. 7T 

firming thereby the opinions of " grand-mamma wolf*," and 
upsetting yours ; — that Magendie teaches the same doctrine, 
in regard to the brain and internal faculties ; — that the 
reality of the distinction between power and activity^ as 
separate qualities of mind, which you deny, is support 
ed by the opinion of Bonaparte, and proved, besides, by 
examples of characters on the stage ; — that this dis- 
tinction holds even in the case of colouring, as is esta- 
blished by the power displayed by Titian and Rubens on 
canvas, contrasted with the activity of an assorter of rib- 
bons, or of a miss selecting threads for her sampler ; — 
that your objections, founded on the effects of education and 
disease in the mental faculties, are rendered plausible, solely 
by your omitting the qualification, constantly stated by the 
Phrenologists, that Size determines power ^ only when othe r 
THINGS ARE EftUAL ; and by misrepresenting their doctrine, 
which is this^ that if the same education, or the same sti- 
mulus of disease is applied to two brains, one large, and the 
other small, the effects produced will be great or small in the 
direct ratio of the size of the brain ; — that modifications 
of character to some extent are perfectly in accordance with 
phrenological principles ; but that changes of talents and dis- 
positions have their limits in nature, and in Phrenology also ; 
— that your objections to the Phrenological organs not being 
radically distinct in their appearances, are equally applicable 
to many of the nerves, and particularly to the nerves of mo- 
tion and feeling, which are as little distinguishable from 
each other in structure and appearance, as the organs in the 
brain, and yet are ascertained to perform separate functions ; 
—that your contempt of the anatomical discoveries of Drs 
Gall and Spurzheim, is founded in ignorance, and discounte- 
nanced by the greatest modern anatomists, — while your as- 
signment of the merit of such part of them as you admit to 
be true, to Reil, is refuted by the testimony of Reil himself; 

— that the treatment which Phrenology has met with from 

8 



78 LETTER FROM GEORGE COMBE, «kc. 

you and other critical autliorities, is accounted for by Pro- 
fessor Playfair, when discussing the reception given to the 
discoveries of Newton ; — that the Phrenologists have offered 
you means of verifying or refuting their facts, not incon- 
sistent with either your dignity or delicacy, but of which you 
have sedulously declined to avail yourself ;^-and, finally, that, 
even in the indirect praise which you bestow on the System 
of Phrenology, the same lack of knowledge and just discrimi- 
nation is conspicuous which characterizes all the other parts 
of your Article. 

I have the honour to be, 

Sir, 

Your most obedient, very humble servant, 

GEO. COMBE. 

Edinlurghy October 31, 1826. 



PRINTED BY OLIVER & BOYD. 



i 



